THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


Story  of  the  Session 


f  th< 


or  me 


California  Legislature 


of 

1915 


By 
Franklin  Hichborn 


Back  of  the  ineffectiveness  of  our  legislative  system  is  the 
indifference  of  the  public.  The  Legislature  continues  in- 
effective for  precisely  the  same  reason  that  at  the  special 
election  of  1915,  at  which  measures  of  the  greatest  impor- 
tance to  the  State  were  voted  upon,  out  of  a  registration 
of  approximately  1,250,000  only  260,000  voted. 


San  Francisco 

Press  of  The  James  H.  Barry  C:mpany 

1916 


JkL157< 


FRANKLIN  HICHBORN'S 

BOOKS  ON 
CALIFORNIA  POLITICS 


Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909       -       -       -  $1.25 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911  -      -      -  1.50 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913       -       -       -  1.50 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1915  -  1.50 

"The    System"   as   Uncovered  by   the    San   Francisco 

Graft  Prosecution 1.50 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  Page 

I.     The  California  State  Election  of  1914 10 

II.     Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature 16 

III.  Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem 28 

IV.  Patching  Up  a  Bad  Job 38 

V.  Attempted  Solutions  of  the  Tax  Problem .  .  43 

VI.     The  Jitney  Bus  Issue 54 

VII.     The  Grant- Wolfe  Recall  Contest 66 

VIII.     Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant 88 

IX.     Safeguarding    Direct    Legislation 101 

X.     The   State   Non-Partisan   Bill 109 

XI.     Moral  Issues   120 

XII.     Bismark  Bruck's  Amendment 133 

XIII.  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 143 

XIV.  Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling.  ..  .160 
XV.     Measures  Supported  by  Women 174 

XVI.     The  Woman- Juror  Bills 181 

XVII.     Labor  and  the  Legislature 189 

XVIII.     The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment 204 

XIX.     San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 212 

XX.  Legislature's  Work  Left  Uncompleted.  ..  .229 

a.  Alien  Ownership  of  Land. 

b.  Exploitation  of  Land  by  Gold  Dredging. 

c.  Fire  Insurance  Regulation. 

XXI.     Conclusion 241 

Appendix,  Etc 248 


PREFACE. 

This  little  book  is  the  fourth  of  a  series  of  reviews 
of  the  work  of  the  California  Legislature.  The  first 
was  issued  after  the  adjournment  of  the  session  of  1909. 
It  was  followed  by  the  reviews  of  the  1911  and  of  the 
1913  sessions. 

The  purpose  of  publishing  these  reviews  is  to  place 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  of  California  data  by  which 
they  may  form  their  own  opinion  of  the  course  of  their 
representative  in  Senate  or  Assembly. 

It  is  not  contended  that  all  the  measures  which  were 
before  the  1915  session  are  considered.  But  enough 
measures  are  considered  that  the  reader  may  form 
some  opinion  of  the  part  which  his  representative  took 
in  the  work  of  the  session,  the  attitude  he  assumed, 
and  the  considerations  which  governed  his  course  as  a 
legislator. 

For  the  tables  of  legislative  votes,  the  same  is 
claimed  as  was  set  forth  in  the  prefaces  of  the  other 
reviews,  namely :  That  the  tables  have  been  arranged 
to  show  how  each  member  stood  on  given  groups  of 
measures;  that  it  is  not  pretended  that  all  the  votes  on 
all  the  bills  are  included.  It  is  claimed,  however,  that 
the  bills  included  in  the  tables  are  typical  of  their  group ; 
are  important  measures  of  the  group  in  which  they  ap- 
pear, and  give  fair  indication,  so  far  as  the  record  can 
show,  of  the  attitude  of  the  several  Senators  and  As- 
semblymen. It  is  not  intended  to  pass  judgment  upon 
the  individual  records.  But  it  is  intended  to  furnish 
data  by  which  the  reader  can  judge  for  himself  of  the 
record  of  each  member. 


Fewer  votes  are  included  in  these  tables  than  were 
given  in  the  tables  of  the  other  reviews.  This  is  due 
principally  to  the  fact  that  the  1915  Legislature  was 
without  the  effective  anti-machine  minority  such  as 
forced  test  votes  at  the  1909  session,  while  few  meas- 
ures of  large  importance  such  as  marked  notably  the 
1911  session,  and  in  less  degree  the  1913  session,  came 
to  vote. 

As  incident  to  the  problem  which  the  State  has  at 
San  Francisco,  two  chapters  are  devoted  to  the  recall 
of  State  Senator  E.  E.  Grant.  There  is,  however,  an- 
other important  reason  for  the  space  devoted  to  this 
recall.  Better  than  anything  else,  the  incident  shows 
the  abuses  possible  under  the  recall,  and  the  necessity 
of  guarding  against  such  abuses.  The  Grant  recall  illus- 
trated as  nothing  else  has  that  the  recall  can  be  safe- 
guarded only  by  vigorously  enforced  penalties  against 
its  corruption  and  abuse. 

The  1915  Legislature  undertook  to  provide  such 
penalties.  Protective  enactments  cannot,  of  course,  pre- 
vent the  recall  of  a  worthy  official  whose  lot  is  cast  in 
a  district  where  standards  of  citizenship  and  morals 
are,  with  a  considerable  proportion  of  its  citizens,  below 
normal,  and  where  the  American  spirit  of  just  dealing 
and  fair  play  does  not  hold.  But  the  public  official 
placed  upon  his  defense  under  the  recall,  can  be  pro- 
tected against  misrepresentation,  forgery  and  fraud. 
This  the  1915  Legislature,  with  Senator  Grant's  case 
before  it,  undertook  to  do. 

Several  so-called  progressive  measures  proposed  by 
the  1915  Legislature,  notably  the  Direct  Primary  law 
providing  for  State  non-partisan  elections,  were  re- 
jected at  the  polls  on  October  26  last. 

These  measures  are  treated  precisely  as  they  would 


have  been  had  this  book  been  published  prior  to  their 
rejection.  That  the  rejecting  referendum  vote  was  ex- 
pressive of  the  purpose  of  even  a  considerable  minority 
of  The  People  of  California,  the  writer  does  not  be- 
lieve. Of  the  million  and  a  quarter  registered  voters 
of  the  State,  only  260,000  voted  at  that  election.  In  no 
case  did  the  negative  vote  reach  200,000.  Nearly  a  mil- 
lion registered  electors  did  not  vote  one  way  or  the 
other.  However  this  may  reflect  upon  the  interest  of 
California  electors  in  important  public  questions,  the 
vote  by  no  means  shows  the  attitude  of  the  electors. 
Had  the  961,000  who  participated  in  the  general  elec- 
tions less  than  a  year  before,  gone  to  the  polls,  the 
several  measures,  with  the  exception  of  the  so-called 
Revenue  and  Taxation  amendment  and  that  increasing 
the  terms  of  members  of  the  Superior  Bench,  would 
unquestionably  have  been  ratified. 

The  1915  review,  although  written  immediately  after 
the  close  of  the  session,  is  published  several  months 
later  in  the  year  than  were  the  Stories  of  the  Sessions 
of  1909,  1911  and  1913.  But  it  goes  to  its  readers 
before  the  opening  of  the  campaign  for  the  election  of 
the  members  of  the  Legislature  of  1917. 

FRANKLIN   HICHBORN. 
Santa  Clara,  Cal.,  July  4,  1916. 


COPYRIGHT,   191 


FRANKLIN     HICHBORN 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  California  State  Election  of  1914. 

The  re-election  of  Governor  Hiram  W.  Johnson  in 
1914  was  a  personal  victory.  Refusing  to  consider  nom- 
ination on  either  the  Republican  or  the  Democratic 
ticket,  Johnson  ran  as  the  candidate  of  the  Progressive 
party.  In  so  doing  he  entered  the  contest  with  the  party 
registration  overwhelmingly  against  him.1 

On  the  face  of  the  registered  party  vote,  Johnson 
had  no  chance  for  election.  The  pre-election  estimates 
of  his  opponents  were  based  on  this  registration. 

But  a  question  of  greater  moment  than  party  con- 
sideration governed  the  contest — Had  Johnson  retained 
the  confidence  of  The  People? 

Those  in  touch  with  California  political  conditions 
realized  that,  with  this  confidence  conserved,  Johnson 
could  not  be  defeated.  They  recognized  also  that  un- 
less he  still  held  this  confidence  his  election  could  not 
be  accomplished.  Such  was  the  practical  consideration 
with  which  campaign  managers  of  the  several  parties 


l  At  the  time  of  the  1914  primaries,  the  Republican  registration 
exceeded  the  Progressive  by  204,310.  The  total  State  registration 
up  to  the  closing  of  registration  for  the  1914  primaries  was  930,886, 
as  follows:  Republican,  388,985;  Democratic,  206,146;  Progressive, 
184,675;  Socialist,  50,741;  Prohibition,  28,199;  Independent,  498; 
Lfnion  Labor,  661:  Progressive  Republican,  321;  decline  to  state 
party  affiliation,    70,041;   scattering,    619. 


io     The  California  State  Election  of  1914 

had  to  concern  themselves.  The  answer  came  with 
the  election  returns.2 

Out  of  the  926,687  votes  cast  for  Governor,  Johnson 
received  460,495  ;  Fredericks,  his  Republican  opponent, 
271,990;  Curtin,  the  Democrat,  116,121.  Johnson  re- 
ceived 344,374  more  votes  than  Curtin,  his  plurality  over 
Fredericks  was  188,505 ;  he  received  72,384  votes  more 
than  the  combined  Fredericks  and  Curtin  vote.3 

Nor  was  his  large  vote  the  only  endorsement  given 
Johnson  at  the  1914  polls. 

Three  important  measures  passed  at  the  1913  session 
of  the  Legislature — the  so-called  "Blue  Sky  law,"  the 
Conservation  act,  and  the  Redlight  Abatement  act — had, 
under  the  Referendum,  been  held  up  until  they  could 
be  voted  upon  at  the  1914  election.  These  acts  were 
among  the  most  important  of  the  so-called  Progressive 
measures  which  had  passed  the  1913  Legislature.  The 
three  were  endorsed  at  the  polls  by  substantial  majori- 
ties.4 

The  endorsement  of  Governor  Johnson,  and  of  the 

2  Johnson  was  the  first  California  Governor  to  be  re-elected 
since  the  re-election  of  John  Bilger  in  1853,  and  the  first  Califor- 
nia Governor  to  be  re-elected  for  a  four-year  term.  Up  to  1863, 
the  Governors  of  California  were  elected  for  two-year   terms  only. 

.!  Johnson  did  not,  however,  receive  a  majority  of  the  votes 
c;ist.  Richardson  (Socialist)  received  50,716  votes,  and  Moore  (Pro- 
hibitionist) 27,345,  while  there  were  scattering  22  votes,  making  the 
total  vote  of  Johnson's  opponents,  466,194,  2.S49  more  than  a  ma- 
jority of  the   926,689  cast  for  Governor. 

4  Comparison  of  the  votes  of  the  various  parts  of  the  State  on 
these  measures  is  interesting.  Los  Angeles  county,  for  example, 
cast  113,608  votes  for  the  Redlight  Abatement  act,  while  San 
Francisco  county  cast  only  38,556  votes  for  it.  Los  Angeles 
county  cast  111,470  votes  for  the  "Blue  Sky"  law;  San  Francisco 
cast  only  40,608.  Los  Angeles  county  cast  88,572  votes  for  the 
Conservation  act;  San  Francisco  cast  only  39,876  votes  for  it.  At 
San  Francisco,  these  measures  were  all  defeated  by  large  majori- 
ties. At  Los  Angeles  they  were  carried  overwhelmingly.  It  will 
be  noted  that  the  vote  tor  the  three  measures  at  San  Francisco 
was  practically  the   same. 


The  California  State  Election  of  1914     11 

policies  with  which  his  name  is  identified,  was  com- 
plete. 

But  here  public  interest  apparently  ceased.  Instead 
of  viewing  the  government  of  the  State  and  its  subdi- 
visions as  a  whole,  the  public  apparently  gave  attention 
only  to  the  Executive.  Frank  C.  Jordan,  prominent  in 
old  organization  councils,  and  at  the  head  of  the  oppo- 
sition to  Governor  Johnson  and  the  so-called  Progres- 
sive policies,  was  re-elected  Secretary  of  State  by  large 
majority.5 

The  public  was  as  inconsistent  in  dealing  with  the 
judiciary.  Frank  H.  Kerrigan,  whose  affiliation  with 
the  old  organization  element  was  notorious,6  was  given 
no  opposition  whatever  for  re-election  to  the  District 
Court  of  Appeal,  for  the  First  Appellate  District.  On 
the  other  hand,  where  the  public  identified  a  candidate 
for  the  bench  with  the  movement  for  clean  political  con- 
ditions, that  candidate's  majority  was  overwhelming. 
Hon.  W.  P.  Lawlor,  for  example,  who  as  Superior 
Judge  at  San  Francisco  had  presided  over  Graft  Trials, 
without  allowing  himself  to  be  influenced  by  the  social 
standing  and  powerful  financial  and  political  connections 
of  the  graft  defendants,  was  elected  to  the  Supreme 
Bench  with  a  vote  of  448,134.  His  nearest  opponent 
received  only  328,922  votes,  119,212  less  than  the  vote 
cast  for  Justice  Lawlor. 

In  the  same  way,  the  State's  consideration  for  those 

5  Jordan  received  487,904  votes,  27,409  more  than  were  cast  for 
Governor  Johnson.  Jordan  had  the  Republican  and  Democratic 
nominations.  Jordan's  Progressive  opponent  was  F.  J.  O'Brien. 
O'Brien's  vote  was  216,938.  Jordan  received  270,966  more  votes 
than   O'Brien.     Jordan   was   elected    with   a   majority  of    59,763. 

g  See  "The  System  as  Uncovered  by  the  San  Francisco  Graft 
Prosecution,"  page  64. 


12     The  California  State  Election  of  1914 

who  had  been  instrumental  in  the  prosecution  of  men 
prominent  in  the  financial  and  political  affairs  at  San 
Francisco  who  had  been  trapped  in  the  corruption  of 
that  city's  municipal  government,  was  shown  in  the  vote 
cast  for  United  States  Senator. 

The  three  principal  candidates  were  Joseph  R.  Know- 
land,  Republican ;  Francis  J.  Heney,  Progressive ;  James 
D.  Phelan,  Democrat. 

Knowland  had  been  counted  one  of  the  leaders  of 
the  old  "organization"  group.  He  appeared  in  the  much 
advertised  flashlight  picture,  the  so-called  "Shame  of 
California,"  taken  at  Santa  Cruz  during  the  1906  Re- 
publican State  convention  held  in  that  city.  The  pic- 
ture showed  a  group  of  men  prominent  in  the  political 
"organization"  that  then  dominated  the  State,  with  Abe 
Ruef  as  the  central  figure.7  On  the  other  hand,  Heney 
had  conducted  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution, 
while  Phelan  had  been  Rudolph  Spreckels's  closest  asso- 
ciate in  its  promotion  and  financing. 

Outside  San  Francisco,  Knowland  received  222,682 
votes,  Heney  225,366,  Phelan  219,271.  Heney,  there- 
fore, came  to  San  Francisco  with  a  lead  of  2684  over 
Knowland,  and  6095  over  Phelan.  But  at  San  Fran- 
cisco Phelan  received  60,625  votes,  Knowland  31,477, 
while  Heney  received  only  29,866.  The  San  Francisco 
vote  gave  Phelan  a  lead  of  nearly  25,000  over  Heney, 
while  Knowland  was  left  third  in  the  race.  The  com- 
bined vote  of  Phelan  and  Heney  was  535,128.  Know- 
land's  vote  was  254,159. 


7  See    "The   System   as   Uncovered   by    the    San    Francisco   Graft 
Prosecution,"   page  64. 


The  California  State  Election  of  1914     13 

The  inconsistencies  shown  in  the  election  of  offi- 
cials dependent  upon  a  State-wide  vote  were  as  pro- 
nounced in  the  selection  of  Congressmen. 

In  the  Sixth  District,  for  example,  the  Progressive 
candidate  (Elston)  was  elected,  but  by  a  plurality  of 
less  than  6000,  while  Johnson  (Progressive)  received 
in  this  district  a  plurality  of  21,708,  and  Jordan  (Re- 
publican) a  plurality  of  26,160.  In  the  Eighth  Con- 
gressional District,  which  went  Progressive  for  Gov- 
ernor and  Republican  for  Secretary  of  State,  the 
Progressive  candidate,  L.  D.  Bohnett,  was  defeated  by 
the  Republican,  E.  A.  Hayes,  Hayes's  plurality  being 
2793.  In  the  Fourth  District,  entirely  within  San 
Francisco,  the  inconsistencies  of  the  electors  reached 
the  maximum  of  absurdity  when  the  San  Francisco 
Progressives  gave  their  nomination  to  Julius  Kahn, 
one  of  the  most  conspicuous  "Reactionaries,"  so-called, 
in  the  State. 

With  the  State's  attention  centered  on  the  contest 
for  Governor,  and  little  or  no  attention  •  being  given 
important  State  and  district  candidates,  the  electors 
were  consistently  inconsistent  when  they  paid  compara- 
tively little  attention  to  the  selection  of  members  of 
the  Legislature. 

The  result  was  the  election  of  many  members  of 
Senate  and  Assembly  who  were  not  in  sympathy  with 
the  State  Executive  nor  with  the  policies  which  he 
advocated.  On  the  other  hand,  the  districts  from 
which  these  Representatives  were  elected,  in  the  ma- 
jority of  cases,  overwhelmingly  endorsed  both  the 
Progressive    administration    and    its    policies.8 

8  Fresno   county   was    a    notable    example    of   this. 


14     The  California  State  Election  of  1914 

Another  matter  that  had  important  bearing  upon 
the  work  of  the  1915  session,  was  the  retirement  of 
many  of  the  progressive  members,  Democratic  as  well 
as  Republican,  under  whose  leadership  the  substantial 
reforms  which  have  characterized  the  progressive 
movement  in  California  had  been  secured.  This  was 
not  so  true  of  the  Senate  as  of  the  Assembly.  In 
the  Senate,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Boynton,  Shanahan  and 
Caminetti,  who  had  taken  prominent  part  in  the  1911 
and  1913  sessions,  were  not  candidates  for  re-election. 
But  their  loss  was  in  a  measure  met  by  the  advance- 
ment of  Benedict  and  Chandler  from  the  Assembly 
to  the  Senate,  and  the  election  to  their  first  terms  in 
the  Legislature  of  Senator  Luce  of  San  Diego,  Dun- 
can of  Butte  and  King  of  San  Bernardino.  Then,  too, 
members  of  the  types  of  Benson,  Birdsall,  Breed, 
Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Rush, 
Strobridge,  and  Thompson,9  who  had  made  progressive 
records  at  previous  sessions,  retained  their  seats  as 
holdovers,    or    were   re-elected. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  opposition  to  progressive 
policies  had,  in  the  Senate,  been  decidedly  weakened. 
The  retirement  of  Senators  Curtin  and  Wright 9  had 
not  been  offset  by  the  return  of  Eddie  Wolfe9  of  San 
Francisco.  The  opponents  of  the  administration  in 
the  Senate  were  practically  destitute  of  leadership 
which  was  at  the  same  time  effective  and  capable  of 
commanding  respect. 

Of    the    eighty    members    of    the    Assembly,    only 

9  Kor  records  of  members  who  had  served  at  previous  sessions 
see  Senate  Journals  ;ind  Stories  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909,    1911   and   1913. 


The  California  State  Election  of  1914     15 

twenty  had  seen  previous  legislative  service.  Of  the 
twenty,  twelve  had  served  in  the  session  of  1913  only. 
This  left  only  eight  of  longer  legislative  service  than 
a  single  term.  Of  the  eight,  only  four — Hayes, 
Schmitt,  Young  and  Rutherford — had  served  in  the 
memorable  session  of  1909 10  when  the  first  deter- 
mined opposition  to  the  machine  element  paved  the  way 
for  the  success  of  the  progressives  in  1910.  Of  the 
eighty  members,  not  one  had  served  in  the  session  of 
1907,  the  last  session  absolutely  dominated  by  the  allied 
vice  and  corporation  interests. 

The  Progressives,  except  in  the  case  of  Young, 
had  lost  their  effective  Assembly  leaders.  Benedict 
and  Chandler  were  in  the  Senate.  Bloodgood  had 
been  appointed  to  the  State  Board  of  Control.  Boh- 
nett  of  San  Jose,  W.  C.  Clark  of  Alameda,  Finnegan 
of  Nevada,  Guill  of  Butte,  Wyllie  of  Tulare,  had  not 
been  candidates  for  re-election.  This  left  the  progres- 
sives in  the  Assembly  almost  destitute  of  leadership. 
They  were  further  weakened  by  the  loss  of  Ruther- 
ford. Rutherford  became  seriously  ill  a  few  days  after 
the  session  opened,  dying  before  adjournment  was 
taken.  Nor  did  any  of  the  new  members  among  the 
Progressive  Assemblymen  develop  qualities  of  effective 
leadership. 

10  The  remaining'  four  Assemblymen  who  had  seen  previous 
service  were  McDonald,  W.  A.,  of  San  Francisco,  and  Ryan,  who 
had  served  at  the  1911  session;  Arnerich,  who  had  served  at  the 
session  of  1905,  and  Brown  of  San  Mateo,  who  had  served  in  the 
sessions  of  1899,  1901  and  1903.  After  being  out  of  the  Legislature 
for  eight  years,  Brown  was  returned  in  1911  and  1913.  Rutherford 
had  served  in  the  1901  Assembly.  After  being  out  of  the  Legisla- 
ture  for  four  terms  he  was  returned   in  1911. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Organizing  a   Five- Party   Legislature. 

No    Partisan    Group    Controlled    the    ig  15   Legislature. 

In  the  Assembly,  five "  parties  had  representation, 
a  situation  theretofore  unheard  of  in  California  politi- 
cal history.  Those  labeled  Republican  came  nearest 
control.  Of  the  eighty  Assemblymen,  twenty-four 12 
had  been  elected  as  Republicans.  In  addition,  seven  13 
had  been  elected  with  Republican  and  Democratic 
nominations,  while  ten 14  had  had  both  Republican 
and  Progressive  nominations.  Six  15  had  had  Repub- 
lican, Democratic  and  Progressive  nominations.  There 
were  still  others  whose  names  had  appeared  on  the 
ballot  with  the  Republican  party  label  attached:  Boude 
had  had  the  Republican,  Progressive  and  Socialist 
nominations ;   Rigdon   had  had   the   Republican,   Demo- 


11  Republican,  Democratic,  Progressive,  Socialist  and  Prohibi- 
tionist. 

12  Assemblymen  elected  as  Republicans  and  with  no  other  party 
nomination  were:  Anerich,  Ashley,  Bartlett,  Benton,  Brown  of 
San  Mateo,  Burke,  Chamberlin,  Conard,  Edwards  of  Ventura,  God- 
sil,  Hayes  of  Santa  Clara,  Hayes  of  San  Francisco,  Long,  Lostut- 
ter,  McCray,  McDonald,  J.  J.  Manning,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Rodgers, 
Rominger,   Schmitt,    Scott  of  Los  Angeles,    Scott  of  Fresno — 24. 

13  Those  having  had  both  Democratic  and  Republican  nomina- 
tions were:  Boyce,  Bruck,  Chenoweth,  Ellis,  Johnson,  Lyon, 
Quinn — 7. 

14  Those  who  had  been  elected  as  Progressives  and  Republicans 
were:  Anderson,  Cary,  Dennett,  Gelder,  Kennedy,  Kramer, 
McPherson,    Ryan,    Sharkey,    Shartel — 10. 

15  Those  who  had  Republican,  Progressive,  and  Democrat  nomi- 
nations were:  Canepa,  Collins,  McDonald,  W.  A.  of  San  Fran- 
cisco,   Mouser,    Widenmann,    Young — 6. 


Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature      17 

cratic  and  Prohibitionist;  Wright  of  Santa  Clara,  the 
Republican,  Progressive  and  Prohibitionist ;  Sisson, 
the  Republican,  Democratic,  Progressive  and  Prohibi- 
tionist, while  one  member,  Harris,  had  been  nominated 
by  all  five  parties,  and  appeared  as  a  Republican, 
Democrat,  Progressive,  Prohibitionist  and  Socialist. 

Untangled  from  the  net  of  partisan  absurdity,  Har- 
ris in  plain  life  is  a  Socialist  and  a  good  one.  But 
here  again  partisan  absurdity  scored  high.  The  So- 
cialists had  repudiated  Harris  because  Harris  wouldn't 
repudiate  the  other  nominations.  Of  the  eighty  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly,  fifty-three  had  received  Repub- 
lican   nominations. 

No  less  than  thirty-five  had  received  Democratic 
nominations.  They  were  the  seventeen  named  above 
in  connection  with  their  Republican  nominations,  ten 
who  had  been  elected  with  Democratic  nomination 
only,16  seven 17  who  had  had  Progressive  nomination 
as  well  as  Democratic,  and  one,  Phelps,  who  had  been 
nominated  by  the  Prohibitionists,  Progressives  and 
Democrats. 

Of  the  eighty  members,  only  seven 18  had  been 
elected  as  Progressives  alone.  But  twenty-eight  others 
had  been  given  Progressive  as  well  as  other  nomina- 
tions. This  made  thirty-five  with  Progressive  nomina- 
tions. 


16  Those  who  had  been  elected  with  Democratic  nomination 
only  were:  Beck,  Byrnes,  Edwards  of  San  Joaquin,  Hawson  of 
Fresno,  Kerr,  Meek,  Ream,  Salisbury,  Tabler,  Wills — 10. 

l"  Those  who  had  been  elected  with  Progressive  and  Democratic 
nominations  were:  Avey,  Browne  of  Tuolumne,  Ferguson,  Mc- 
Knight,  Marron,  Scott  of  Tulare,  Wright  of  Los  Angeles — 7. 

18  The  Assemblymen  elected  as  Progressives  only  were:  Encell, 
Fish,  Gebhart,  Judson,  Prendergast,  Satterwhite,  Wishard — 7. 


1 8      Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature 

Four  had  been  nominated  by  the  Socialists — Down- 
ing and  Spengler,  who  had  had  no  other  nomination ; 
Boude  and  Harris,  who  had  received  the  Socialist  in 
connection    with    other   nominations. 

Five  had,  in  connection  with  nominations  of  other 
parties,  been  nominated  by  the  Prohibitionists.  They 
were  Phelps,  Harris,  Rigdon,  Sisson  and  Wright  of 
Santa  Clara. 

Such  was  the  partisan  line-up  of  the  California 
Assembly  of  1915.  Had  partisan  division  meant  any- 
thing at  all,  the  fifty-three  who  could  claim  Republican 
nomination  would  have  met  in  caucus,  decided  under 
caucus  rule  what  the  Assembly  organization  was  to 
be,  and  with  their  fifty-three  votes  have  forced  such 
organization  upon  the  Assembly. 

But  partisan  lines,  or  partisan  nomination,  or  multi- 
partisan  nomination,  was  without  meaning  at  the  1915 
session.  To  say  that  a  man  has  been  elected  as  a 
Republican  or  as  a  Democrat  or  as  a  Progressive,  or 
even  by  a  combination  of  all  three  parties,  gives  no 
indication  of  the  principles  for  which  he  stands.  Long 
of  Kings  County,  for  example,  and  J.  J.  McDonald 
of  San  Francisco  were  both  elected  as  Republicans. 
But  these  two  men  have  little  or  nothing  in  common. 
Study  of  their  votes  as  shown  in  the  table  on  moral 
issues  will  show  them  more  often  voting  in  opposi- 
tion than  together.  The  same  will  be  found  true  of 
Byrnes  and  Meek,  both  elected  as  Democrats  only. 
The  Democrats,  Republicans  and  Progressives  at  San 
Francisco  were  so  confident  that  Canepa  would  ideally 
represent    them,    that    they    all    gave    him    nomination. 


Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature      19 

On  the  other  side  of  San  Francisco  Bay,  in  Alameda 
County,  the  same  three  parties  gave  Young  their 
nomination.  It  might  be  assumed  from  such  una- 
nimity of  nomination,  that  the  two  men,  living  not  ten 
miles  apart,  each  the  choice  of  three  parties,  stand  for 
practically  the  same  principles.  But  at  few  points  do 
they  touch.  The  reader  will,  for  example,  find  com- 
parison of  their  votes  on  moral  issues  in  point.19 

In  a  situation  so  complicated,  the  so-called  reac- 
tionary element  in  the  State  government  sought  to 
strengthen  itself  by  seizing  the  Assembly  organization.20 
They  attempted  to  do  this  through  a  combination  of 
Democrats  and  Republicans.  Milton  Schmitt 21  of 
San  Francisco  was  selected  as  their  candidate. 
Schmitt's  record  at  the  previous  sessions  had  been 
that  of  opposition  to  the  so-called  progressive  policies. 
Possessed  of  more  ability  than  the  ordinary  San  Fran- 
cisco member,  Schmitt  had  been  more  or  less  a  leader 
of  his  group  at  previous  sessions.  He  had  the  year 
before  even  been  counted  a  possible  nominee  on  the 
Republican  ticket  for  Lieutenant-Governor.  He  was 
unquestionably  the  logical  candidate  of  the  faction  that 
was  seeking  control  of  the  Assembly  in  opposition  to 
the  so-called  progressives  of  all  parties.     One  curious 

19  See   Table   IV  appendix,   votes  on  Moral   issues. 

20  At  the  1909  session,  the  anti-machine  element  had  a  slight 
majority  in  each  House.  But  the  machine  minority  was  organ- 
ized, the  anti-machine  majority  was  not.  The  machine  element 
organized  both  Houses,  and  through  that  organization  controlled 
the  Legislature.  See  "The  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909." 

21  For  Schmitt's  record  in  the  Legislature  see  Assembly  Jour- 
nals for  1909,  1911  and  1913,  and  the  tables  of  Assembly  votes 
contained  in  the  Stories  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909, 
1911    and    1913. 


20      Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature 

feature  of  this  San  Francisco  politician's  candidacy 
was  the  presence  in  the  group  about  him  of  seven  Los 
Angeles  members — Bartlett,  Benton,  Chamberlain,  Los- 
tutter,  Lyon,  Reminger,  and  Charles  E.  Scott. 

But  it  soon  developed  that  Schmitt  could  not  possi- 
bly be  elected  Speaker.  The  only  hope  the  opposition 
had  was  in  the  cooperation  of  the  Democratic  mem- 
bers. Not  even  all  those  who  had  been  elected  on  the 
Republican  ticket  only,  appeared  at  the  Republican 
caucus.  At  no  time  were  more  than  twenty  present. 
Schmitt  adroitly  withdrew  his  candidacy,  in  favor  of 
probably  the  strongest  man  who  could  have  been  in- 
duced to  make  the  fight — Brown  of  San  Mateo.  The 
caucus  appointed  a  committee  to  consult  with  the 
Democrats,  with  the  view  of  swinging  the  Democratic 
vote    for   Brown. 

But  the  negotiations  carried  on  between  the  two 
parties  failed.  Democrats  of  the  type  of  Meek  of 
Butte  County  refused  to  have  any  part  in  such  a  com- 
bination. The  Schmitt-Brown  group  found  itself  un- 
able  to   make   headway. 

The  progressive  element  in  the  Assembly  had  picked 
as  their  candidate  for  Speaker,  C.  C.  Young  of 
Berkeley. 

Young  had  been  one  of  the  principal  leaders  in 
opposition  to  the  machine  element  at  the  1909  session. 
He  had  served  three  terms  in  the  Legislature,  being 
elected  Speaker22  at  the  1913  session.  His  legislative 
record  was  regarded  as  100  per  cent.  good.    As  Speaker 

22  For    comment    on    Young's    election    as    Speaker    in    1913,    see 
"Story   of   the    California    Legislature    of   1913,"    page    32. 


Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature      21 

of  the  1913  Assembly,  he  had  made  a  satisfactory  pre- 
siding officer.  But  twelve  hours  before  the  vote  for 
Speaker  was  taken,  it  was  by  no  means  certain  that 
Young  would  be  chosen.  He  had  promises  of  the 
support  of  a  majority  of  the  Assembly.  But  he  did 
not  have  a  majority  "signed  up."  Nevertheless,  when 
the  hour  for  decision  came,  there  was  almost  a  stam- 
pede for  Young.  Of  the  seventy-six  members  who 
voted  for  Speaker,  only  twenty  voted  for  Brown. 
Young  received  fifty-six  votes,  fifteen  more  than  enough 
to   elect.23 

The  group  that  had  supported  Brown  for  Speaker 
placed  Lostutter  of  Los  Angeles  in  nomination  for 
Speaker  pro  tern.  Those  who  were  supporting  Young 
named  Fish,  also  of  Los  Angeles.  Lostutter  did  not 
make  even  so  good  a  showing  as  had  Brown.  Fish 
was  elected  by  a  vote  of  55  to  16.24 

23  The  vote  by  which  Young  was  elected  Speaker  was  as 
follows: 

For  Young: — Messrs.  Anderson,  Arnerich,  Avey,  Beck,  Browne 
of  Tuolumne,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard, 
Dennett,  Edwards  of  San  Joaquin,  Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish, 
Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris,  Hawson,  Hayes  of  San  Francisco, 
Johnson,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Kerr,  Kramer,  McDonald,  J.  J.; 
McDonald,  Walter  A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Manning,  Meek, 
Mouser,  Pettis,  Phelps,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Quinn,  Ream,  Rigdon, 
Rutherford,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Scott  of  Tulare,  Shartel, 
Sharkey,  Sisson,  Tabler,  Widenmann,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright  of 
Los   Angeles,    and   Wright   of   Santa   Clara — 56. 

For  Brown: — Messrs.  Ashley,  Bartlett,  Benton,  Boude,  Boyce, 
Bruck,  Burke,  Chamberlin,  Edwards  of  Ventura,  Hayes  of  Santa 
Clara,  Dong,  Lostutter,  Lyon,  McCray,  Rodgers,  Rominger, 
Sehmitt,   Scott  of  Los  Angeles,   Scott  of  Fresno,   and  Young — 20. 

24  The  vote  by  which  Fish  was  elected  Speaker  pro.   tern,   was: 
For    Fish: — Messrs.    Anderson,    Arnerich,    Avey,    Beck,    Browne 

of  Tuolumne,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard, 
Dennett,  Edwards  of  San  Joaquin,  Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Gebhart, 
Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris,  Hawson,  Hayes  of  San  Francisco,  Johnson, 
Judson,  Kennedy,  Kerr,  Kramer,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald, 
Walter  A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Manning,  Marron,  Meek, 
Mouser,  Pettis,  Phelps,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Quinn,  Ream,  Ruth- 
erford,  Ryan,   Salisbury,    Scott  of  Tulare,   Shartel,    Sharkey,    Sisson, 


22      Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature 

The  Assembly,  practically  without  further  division, 
completed  organization  by  electing  L.  B.  Mallory  25  of 
Los  Gatos,  Chief  Clerk;  H.  B.  Miller  of  Sacramento, 
Sergeant-at-Arms ;  Vincent  G.  Geleich  of  Los  Angeles, 
Minute  Clerk,  and  Rev.  James  Whittaker,  Chaplain. 

The  partisan  division  of  the  Senate  was  quite  as 
confusing  as  that  of  the  Assembly.  Twenty  Senators 
— the  "holdovers" — had  been  elected  in  1912.  The 
Progressive  party  was  not  then  organized.  Progres- 
sives were  that  year  elected  under  the  Republican 
label.  Thus,  while  the  Senate  was  safely  "progressive," 
no  less  than  eighteen 20  of  the  forty  members  had 
been  elected  as  Republicans,  eight 27  had  been  elected 
as  Democrats,  two  only — Beban  and  Carr — had  been 
elected  as  Progressives. 

In  the  matter  of  mixed  tickets,  five — Chandler,  Fla- 
herty, King,  Scott,  and  Tyrrell — had  had  both  Progres- 
sive and  Republican  nominations ;  two — Luce  and  Crow- 
ley— had  had  nominations  from  Progressives  and  Demo- 
crats ;  Benedict  from  Progressives,  Democrats  and  Re- 
publicans ;  Duncan  claimed  Democratic,  Republican  and 
Socialist  nominations ;  Purkett,  Democratic,  Republican 

Tabler,  Widenmann,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright  of  Los  Angeles,  Wright 
of  Santa  Clara,   and  Young — 55. 

For  Lostutter — Messrs.  Ashley,  Bartlett,  Benton,  Boude,  Boyce, 
Browne  of  San  Mateo,  Bruck,  Burke,  Chamberlin,  Edwards  of 
Ventura,  Hayes  of  Santa  Clara,  Lyon,  Rodgers,  Rominger,  Schmitt, 
and    Scott   of   Los   Angeles — 16. 

25  Mallory  had  served  as  Chief  Clerk  at  the  sessions  of  1911 
and   1913. 

26  Senators  who  had  been  elected  as  Republicans  without  other 
nominations  were:  Anderson,  Ballard,  Benson,  Birdsall,  Breed, 
Brown,  Butler,  Cogswell,  Finn,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Kehoe,  Lyon, 
Mott,   Rush,  Strobridge,   Thompson — 18. 

27  Those  Senators  who  had  been  elected  as  Democrats  without 
other  nominations  were:  Campbell.  Cohn,  Irwin,  Maddux,  Owens, 
Shearer,    Slater,    Struckenbruck — 8. 


Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature      23 

and  Prohibitionist;  while  Jones  of  Santa  Clara  had 
four  nominations,  Progressive,  Republican,  Democratic 
and  Prohibitionist.  The  only  member  of  the  Senate — 
of  the  Legislature  for  that  matter — who  had  not  been 
elected  on  partisan  ticket,  was  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco. 
Wolfe  had  been  elected  at  a  Recall  election  without 
party  nomination. 

Partisanship  in  this  instance  certainly  made  strange 
bedfellows.  Beban  and  Carr,  for  example,  the  only 
Senators  elected  on  the  Progressive  ticket  alone,  had 
nothing  in  common. 

Chandler  and  Flaherty  had  been  elected  under  Re- 
publican and  Progressive  nominations.  But  one  could 
have  hunted  the  State  from  end  to  end  without  finding 
two  men  who  differed  more  radically  than  did  Chandler 
and  Flaherty  on  practically  every  question  which  came 
before  the   Legislature. 

But  however  labeled,  the  Senate  was  "progressive" 
— by  a  margin  of  not  more  than  five  votes.  This  mar- 
gin was  enough  to  block  any  contemplated  opposition 
to  the  plans  of  the  Progressives  for  organization. 
With  practically  no  dissenting  vote,  Newton  W.  Thomp- 
son of  Alhambra 2S  was  elected  President  pro  tern. ; 
Edwin  E.  Smith  of  Santa  Barbara,  Secretary ;  Thomas 
A.  Brown  of  San  Francisco,  Sergeant-at-Arms,  and 
Rev.  Father  Starke,  C.  S.  P.,  of  San  Francisco, 
Chaplain. 


28  Thompson  at  the  1909  session  was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 
anti-machine  side,  in  behalf  of  the  passage  of  an  anti-Race  Track 
Gambling  bill,  an  effective  Direct  Primary  law  and  Railroad  Regu- 
lation measures.  These  measures  were  the  test  of  a  legislator's 
attitude  toward  the  "machine"  in  those  days.  After  the  over- 
throw of  the  machine  Thompson  became  one  of  the  most  effective 
men    in    the   Legislature. 


24      Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature 

The  four  were  the  caucus  nominees  of  the  so-called 
progressive  members.  The  principal  contest  had  been 
over  the  nomination  of  Father  Starke.  Father  Starke 
was  the  candidate  of  the  San  Francisco  element. 
Father  Starke's  opponent  was  Rev.  B.  Dent  Naylor 
of  Hayward.  Dr.  Naylor  had  served  as  Chaplain  of 
the  1913  Senate.  There  seemed  no  question  of  his 
selection,  until  Father  Starke's  candidacy  was  advanced. 
Father  Starke  received  the  caucus  nomination.  He  was 
placed  in  nomination  by  Tom  Finn  of  San  Francisco, 
his  nomination  being  seconded  by  "Eddie"  Wolfe  of 
the  notorious  Nineteenth  Senatorial  District  of  that  city. 
Following  Father  Starke's  election,  the  Sacramento  Bee 
showed  that  the  new  Senate  Chaplain,  and  the  Father 
Starke  who  had  been  involved  in  the  so-called  Murphy 
name-plate  affair 29  during  the  San  Francisco  graft 
trials,  were  one  and  the  same.  The  incident  caused 
some  feeling,  a  number  of  members  who  had  supported 
Dr.  Naylor  in  caucus  expressing  regret  that  the  facts 
had  not  been  known  to  the  Senators  at  the  time  the 
caucus  vote  was  taken. 

Involved  with  Father  Starke  in  the  name-plate 
matter  was  Rev.  Father  H.  H.  Wymann.  Father 
Wymann,  with  the  support  of  Senator  "Eddie"  Wolfe, 
was  made  chaplain  of  the  1909  Senate,  and  served  in 
that  capacity  in  the  1911  Senate.  Some  comment  was 
caused  at  the  time  by  the  fact  that  Father  Wymann 
omitted  the  name  of  Christ  from  the  prayer  which  he 

29  See  "The  System  as  Uncovered  by  the  San  Francisco  Graft 
Prosecution,"  Chapter  XXIV,  for  an  account  of  the  name-plate 
incident. 


Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature      25 

read  in  the  Senate.     Following  the  course  taken  by  his 
associate,  Father  Starke  made  the  same  omission.30 

The  election  of  Young-  as  Speaker  of  the  Assembly, 
and  Thompson  as  President  pro  tern,  of  the  Senate, 
ensured  committee  organization  which  would  be  in 
harmony  with  the  progressive  policies  which  had  pre- 
vailed at  the  1911  and  1913  sessions — the  policies  which 


30  The  prayer  used  by  Father  Starke  was  adapted  from  a 
prayer  composed  by  Archbishop  Carroll  in  1800.  Bishop  Carroll's 
prayer  was   as   follows: 

"We  pray  Thee.  O  Almighty  and  Eternal  God,  who  through 
Jesus  Christ  has  revealed  Thy  glory  to  all  nations,  to  preserve 
the  works  of  Thy  mercy,  that  Thy  Church,  being  spread  through 
the  whole  world,  may  continue,  with  unchanging  faith,  in  the 
confession   of   Thy   Name. 

"We  pray  Thee,  who  alone  art  good  and  holy,  to  endow  with 
heavenly  knowledge,  sincere  zeal,  and  sanctity  of  life  our  chief 
Bishop,  N.,  the  Vicar  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  govern- 
ment of  His  Church,  our  own  Bishop,  (or  Archbishop,)  N.  (if  he 
is  not  consecrated,  our  Bishop-elect),  all  other  Bishops,  Prelates, 
and  Pastors  of  the  Church,  and  especially  those  who  are  ap- 
pointed to  exercise  among  us  the  functions  of  the  holy  ministry, 
and    conduct    Thy   people    into    the   ways    of    salvation. 

"We  pray  Thee,  O  God  of  might,  wisdom,  and  justice,  through 
Whom  authority  is  rightly  administered,  laws  are  enacted,  and 
judgment  decreed,  assist,  with  Thy  Holy  Spirit  of  counsel  and 
fortitude,  the  President  of  these  United  States,  that  his  adminis- 
tration may  be  conducted  in  righteousness  and  be  eminently 
useful  to  Thy  people,  over  whom  he  presides,  by  encouraging 
due  respect  for  virtue  and  religion,  by  a  faithful  execution  of 
the  laws  in  justice  and  mercy,  and  by  restraining  vice  and  im- 
morality. Let  the  light  of  Thy  divine  wisdom  direct  the  delibera- 
tions of  Congress,  and  shine  forth  in  all  the  proceedings  and 
laws  framed  for  our  rule  and  government,  so  that  they  may  tend 
to  the  preservation  of  peace,  the  promotion  of  national  happiness, 
the  increase  of  industry,  sobriety,  and  useful  knowledge,  and 
may    perpetuate    to    us    the    blessings    of    equal    liberty. 

"We  pray  for  his  Excellency  the  Governor  of  this  State,  for 
the  members  of  the  Assembly,  for  all  Judges,  Magistrates,  and 
other  officers  who  are  appointed  to  guard  our  political  welfare, 
that  they  may  be  enabled,  by  Thy  powerful  protection,  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  their  respective  stations  with  honesty  and 
ability. 

"We  recommend  likewise  to  Thy  unbounded  mercy  all  our 
brethren  and  fellow-citizens,  throughout  the  United  States,  that 
they  may  be  blessed  in  the  knowledge,  and  sanctified  in  the 
observance  of  Thy  most  holy  law;  that  they  may  be  preserved 
in  union,  and  in  that  peace  which  the  world  cannot  give,  and, 
after  enjoying  the  blessings  of  this  life,  be  admitted  to  those 
which   are   eternal. 

"Finally,  we  pray  Thee,  O  Lord  of  Mercy,  to  remember  the 
souls  of  Thy  servants  departed  who  are  gone  before  us  with 
the  sign  of  faith,  and  repose  in  the  sleep  of  peace,  the  souls 
of  our  parents,   relations,   and  friends,   of  those  who,   when   living, 


26      Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature 

had,  in  the  campaigning  of  four  years,  become  known 
as  "Johnson  policies."  The  Speaker  appoints  the  As- 
sembly committees.  The  Lieutenant-Governor,  as  presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  appoints  the  Senate  committees  un- 
less the  Senate  by  majority  vote  takes  such  appoint- 
ment out  of  the  President's  hands.  Twice  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  California  Legislature  this  has  been  done.31 
Had  the  Senate  opposition  to  the  administration  been 
strong  enough  to  have  named  the  President  pro  tern., 

were  members  of  this  congregation,  and  particularly  of  such  as 
are  lately  deceased,  of  all  benefactors  who,  by  their  donations 
or  legacies  to  this  Church,  witnessed  their  zeal  for  the  decency 
of  divine  worship,  and  proved  their  claim  to  our  grateful  and 
charitable  remembrance.  To  these,  O  Lord,  and  to  all  that  rest 
in  Christ,  grant,  we  beseech  Thee,  a  place  of  refreshment,  light, 
and  everlasting  peace,  through  the  same  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord 
and    Saviour.      Amen." 

The  prayer  as  adapted  by  Father  Starke,  used  in  the  Senate, 
and  published  and  mailed  out  over  the  State  "With  the  compli- 
ments   of    Thos.    F.    Finn,"    was    as   follows: 

"We  pray  Thee,  O  God  of  might,  wisdom  and  justice,  through 
Whom  authority  is  rightly  administered,  laws  are  enacted  and 
judgment  decreed,  assist  with  Thy  Holy  Spirit  of  counsel  and 
fortitude,  the  President  and  the  members  of  this  Senate,  that 
their  administration  may  be  conducted  in  righteousness  and  be 
eminently  useful  to  the  people  of  this  State,  by  encouraging  due 
respect  for  virtue  and  religion,  by  a  faithful  execution  of  the 
laws  in  justice  and  mercy,   by  restraining  vice  and   immorality. 

"Let  the  light  of  Thy  divine  wisdom  direct  their  deliberations 
and  shine  forth  in  all  the  proceedings  and  laws  framed  for  our 
rule  and  government,  so  that  they  may  tend  to  the  preservation 
of  peace,  the  promotion  of  national  happiness,  and  the  increase 
of  industry  and  sobriety,  and  useful  knowledge,  and  may  per- 
petuate to  us   the   blessings  of  equal   liberty. 

"We  recommend  likewise  to  Thy  unbounded  mercy  all  our 
fellow-citizens  throughout  this  State,  that  they  may  be  blessed 
in  the  knowledge  and  sanctified  in  the  observance  of  Thy  most 
holy  Law,  that  they  may  be  preserved  in  union,  and  promote 
the  glory  of  Thy  Holy  Name,  and  that  after  enjoying  the  bless- 
ings of  this  life,  they  may  be  admitted  to  those  that  are  eternal. 
Amen." 

31  In  1887,  when  a  Republican,  Waterman,  was  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  and  the  Senate  majority  was  Democratic;  in  1897, 
when  the  Lieutenant-Governor  was  a  Democrat,  and  the  Senate 
majority  was  Republican.  A  Republican,  Stephen  G.  Millard, 
had  been  elected  Lieutenant-Governor,  but  died  in  office.  A 
Democrat,  Budd,  was  Governor.  Governor  Budd  appointed 
William  T.  Jeter,  a  Democrat,  to  be  Lieutenant-Governor.  When 
the  Senate  convened  in  1907,  the  Republican  majority  named  the 
Senate    committees. 


Organizing  a  Five-Party  Legislature      27 

it  would  have  been  strong  enough  to  have  dictated  the 
appointment  of  committees.  But  the  opposition  devel- 
oped no  such  strength. 

Although  labeled  "Progressive,"  the  organization  of 
Senate  and  Assembly  was  as  a  matter  of  fact  non- 
partisan. The  powerful  position  of  Governor  Johnson, 
with  nearly  half  a  million  votes  back  of  him,  unques- 
tionably had  important  influence  in  compelling  such 
organization.  The  desire  of  progressive  Democrats  to 
secure  results  regardless  of  party  consideration  also  had 
important  bearing  upon  the  outcome.  Then,  too,  there 
was  the  "band-wagon"  consideration.  The  Progres- 
sives were  in  position  of  power,  they  could  give  or 
withhold  the  favors  that  go  with  political  place.  These 
favors  are  the  counters  of  the  political  game.  From 
corporation  president  to  the  holder  of  a  janitor's  job 
on  the  San  Francisco  waterfront,  there  was  no  desire 
to  offend  those  who,  for  the  moment,  were  charged 
with  distribution  of  the  counters.  In  both  Senate  and 
Assembly  were  old-time  henchmen  of  Abe  Ruef  under 
"Progressive"  labels.  There  were  employees  of  public- 
service  corporations  elected  as  "Progressives"  and  far 
more  loudly  "Progressive"  than  those  who  had  been 
instrumental  in  the  kicking  of  those  same  corporations 
out  of  control  of  the  State  government.  When  Young 
in  the  Assembly  and  Thompson  in  the  Senate  developed 
strength,  there  was  a  flocking  to  them  of  men  who  had 
little  in  common  with  either,  and  who,  had  a  "machine" 
Governor  been  in  the  office  of  Chief  Executive,  would 
have  given  them  no  more  consideration  than  Young 
and  Thompson  had  received  at  the  session  of  1909. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem. 

Scarcely  had  the  Legislature  organized  than  the 
attention  of  the  members  was  called  to  the  unsatisfac- 
tory condition  of  the  State's  finances.32  They  found 
themselves  called  upon: 

(1)  To  equalize  taxes  as  between  the  banks,  public- 
service  corporations,  etc.,  that  are  taxed  for  State  pur- 
poses, and  the  general  taxpayers  who  are  taxed  for 
local  purposes. 

(2)  To  provide  sufficient  revenue  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  State  government  for  the  next  two  years. 

The  1911  Legislature  had  attempted  this  job,  failed, 
and  passed  the  problem  on  to  the  Legislature  of  1913. 
The  1913  Legislature  had  had  no  better  success,  and 
had  passed  the  problem  on  unsolved  to  the  Legislature 
of  1915.  And  in  1915,  the  problem  had  grown  to  pro- 
portions which  few  in  1911  33  had  anticipated,  but 
which  by  1913  had  been  generally  recognized  as  coming. 

32  Under  the  present  California  revenue  and  taxation  system, 
certain  groups  of  public  service  corporations  pay  a  percentage 
tax  on  their  gross  earnings  for  State  purposes  only.  They  pay 
no  local  taxes  at  all  on  their  operative  property.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  general  taxpayer  pays  all  the  local — that  is  to  say, 
county,  municipal  and  district — taxes  but  is  popularly  supposed 
to  be  relieved  of  all  obligation  to  pay  taxes  for  State  purposes. 
The  system  is  fully  explained,  with  an  account  of  how  it  came 
to  be  adopted,  in  the  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1913." 

33  The  eventual  results  of  the  new  revenue  and  taxation 
system  were,  however,  predicted  in  the  Sacramento  Bee  during 
the  period  in  which  the  1911  Legislature  was  in  session.  These 
predictions    are    now    fully    borne    out    by    conditions. 


Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem       29 

Developments  of  the  two  years  preceding  the  open- 
ing of  the  1915  session,  threatened  important  decreases 
in  the  State's  revenues.34  The  State  authorities,  in 
estimating  the  1915-16  budget,  placed  the  total  pros- 
pective expenditures  for  the  two  years  at  $36,133,214.55, 
and  the  estimated  receipts  at  $33,266,800.  These  sums 
did  not  take  into  account  anything  save  fixed  charges. 
Nor  did  they  contemplate  the  loss  of  State  revenues, 
about  $840,000  a  year,  caused  by  the  loss  of  the  poll 
tax,  which  had  at  the  1914  general  election  been  abol- 
ished by  direct  vote  of  The   People. 

Without  counting  the  loss  of  the  poll  tax,  the  pros- 
pective deficit  was  $2,866,414.55.  With  the  loss  from 
poll  tax  added — approximately  $1,680,000  for  the  two 
years — the  prospective  deficit  for  the  biennial  period 
was  increased  to  upwards  of  $5,000,000.  That  had  to 
be  met. 

If  there  can  be  humor  in  such  a  situation,  the  fact 
that  the  uninformed,  untried,  haphazard-selected  mem- 
bers of  the  California  Legislature  of  1915  were  called 
upon  to  provide  that  revenue,  may  be  called  humorous. 
The  State's  vast  machinery  for  raising  revenue  was  in 
their  hands,  to  be  sure.     But  they  were  entirely  unpre- 

34  Among   the   reasons  for  this  were: 

(1)  Opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  will  decrease  the  incomes 
of  certain  railroads,  and  automatically  decrease  the  State's 
revenue    on    the    gross    earnings    of    such    properties. 

(2)  Reduction  by  the  State  Railroad  Commission  of  public 
service  corporation  rates.  So  far  as  these  reductions  decreased 
gross   earnings,    the   State's   revenues   were   affected. 

(3)  The  advent  of  the  jitney  bus,  which  reduced  the  gross 
incomes  of  street  railroads,  and  even  urban  electric  and  steam 
roads,    thereby    automatically    reducing    the    State    revenues. 

(4)  The  European  war,  which  had  affected  adversely  the 
incomes    of    certain    corporations. 

(5)  Abolition    of    the    poll    tax. 

(6)  Abolition   of  the  corporation   license   tax. 


30       Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem 

pared  to  employ  that  machinery  intelligently.  Quite  as 
unprepared  as  the  1911  Legislature,  or  the  1913  Legis- 
lature, had  been.  This  was  recognized  by  all  in  touch 
with  the  situation ;  even  the  members  themselves  recog- 
nized their  unpreparedness  and  incapability.'  Whatever 
plan  for  increasing  the  State  revenues  should  be  de- 
cided upon  had  to  originate  outside  the  Legislature. 

Long  before  the  Legislature  convened,  therefore, 
State  officials  met  at  Sacramento  to  consider  the  situa- 
tion. As  the  public-service  corporations,  in  theory  at 
least — being  relieved  of  all  county,  municipal  and  dis- 
trict taxes — are  supposed,  in  lieu  of  paying  local  taxes, 
to  pay  the  bulk  of  the  tax  for  State  purposes,  repre- 
sentatives of  the  public-service  corporations  affected 
were  admitted  to  the  conference.35 

The  conference  developed  the  fact  that  proportion- 
ately the  corporations,  as  a  whole,  were  not  paying  so 
large  a  tax  as  the  general  property  owners.  Local, 
municipal  and  county  taxes — all  paid  by  the  general  tax- 
payer— had,  during  the  two  years,  increased  largely.36 
By  a  process  of  computation  which  at  no  point  favored 
the  general  taxpayer,  the  State's  representatives  de- 
cided that  the  general  taxpayer's  rate,  the  State  over, 
was  $1.2183  on  each  $100  of  the  actual  value  of  his 
property. 

35  Among  those  present  at  the  meeting  were:  Clyde  L. 
Seavey,  member  State  Board  of  Control;  Professor  Carl  Plehn, 
tax  expert  for  the  State  Board  of  Equalization;  Thomas  Eby, 
Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization — all  representing 
the  State;  Warren  Olney,  Jr.,  Western  Pacific  Company;  C.  V. 
Cowden,  Southern  Pacific  Company;  G.  G.  Tunnell,  J.  Harry  Scott, 
Charles  E.    Jewett,   L.    E.    W.   Pioda  and  W.    K.   Kline. 

36  County  assessment  rolls  showed  an  increase  of  10.15  per 
cent.;  county  taxes,  20  per  cent.;  city  assessment  rolls,  15.29 
per    cent.;    city    taxes,    22.23    per    cent. 


Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem       31 

On  the  other  hand,  the  public  service  corporations, 
as  a  whole,  were  paying,  according  to  estimates  based 
on  the  only  available  data,  from  $0.8625  on  the  $100 
of  actual  value  paid  by  the  gas  and  electric  companies, 
to  $1.0872  on  the  $100  actual  value  paid  by  the  tele- 
graph and  telephone  companies.37 

Even  representatives  of  the  corporations  who  at- 
tended the  conference,  it  is  claimed,  admitted  a  dis- 
proportion. The  solution  of  the  problem  would,  then, 
seem  to  have  been  comparatively  easy.  By  increasing 
the  taxes  paid  by  the  corporations  to  apportionately 
those  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer,  the  prospective 
deficit  would  have  been  wiped  out.  This  would  have 
involved  an  increase  of  from  twelve  per  cent,  on  the 
rates  paid  by  the  telephone  and  telegraph  companies, 
to  more  than  forty  per  cent,  on  the  rates  paid  by  the 
gas  and  electric  companies. 

But  no  such  simple  procedure  was  followed.  Indeed, 
attempt  was  made  to  shift  the  burden  from  the  cor- 
porations to  the  general  taxpayer.  The  plan  was  ad- 
vanced to  meet  the  prospective  deficit  by  levying  an 
ad  valorem  State  tax.  This  would  have  compelled  the 
general  taxpayer,  in  addition  to  paying  all  local  taxes, 
to  pay  part  of  the  State  taxes.38  But  Governor  Johnson 
opposed  this. 

37  These  rates  are  a  trifle  lower  than  those  arrived  at  by 
Carl  C.  Plehn,  under  whose  direction  the  State's  present  scheme 
of  revenue  and  taxation  was  devised.  According  to  Plehn's 
calculations,  the  gas  and  electric  companies  were  paying  $0.8763 
on  the  $100  and  the  telephone  and  telegraph  companies  $1.1245. 
The  car  companies  and  express  companies  were  (Plehn's  esti- 
mates) paying  $1.2587  and  $1.5413  respectively.  Increase  of  the 
rates  of  the  last  two  groups  named  was  not  contemplated.  The 
Legislature   reduced   each  materially. 

38  This  plan  was  constantly  referred  to  during  the  session. 
Attorney  General  U.   S.   Webb,   at  a  meeting  of   the   Senate   Com- 


32       Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem 

"I  ask,"  said  the  Governor  in  his  biennial  message 
to  the  Legislature,  after  he  had  recited  the  details  of 
the  situation,  "that  immediately  you  undertake  appropri- 
ate investigation,  and  that  such  determination  be  ren- 
dered by  you  during  the  first  portion  of  your  session  as 
shall  equalize  the  burden  of  taxation,  and  require  the 
payment  by  the  corporations  mentioned  of  their  just 
proportion." 

The  recommendation  would  have  been  more  prac- 
tical had  the  Legislature  had  the  machinery,  and  the 
time,  and  the  expert  knowledge,  to  conduct  such  an 
investigation.  It  had  none  of  these.  It  could  conduct 
no  adequate  investigation.  It  conducted  no  investiga- 
tion at  all.  This  is  not  intended  as  reflection  upon  the 
Legislature.  The  statement  is,  however,  a  decided  re- 
flection upon  a  legislative  system  which,  not  only  in 
this  instance,  but  at  many  points,  fails  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  State. 

The  Legislature,  unable  to  make  practical  investiga- 
tion, was  compelled  to  accept  data  prepared  for  it  by 
those  who  had  attended  the  conference  of  State  offi- 
cials before  the  Legislature  convened.  It  may  be  perti- 
nent to  add  that  the  member  of  the  conference  who  was 
best  prepared  for  the  work,  was  Mr.  Carl  Plehn,  to 
whom,  more  than  to  any  other,  is  due  the  State's  pres- 
ent taxation  system. 

The  simple  procedure  of  raising  the  rates  paid  by 
the  public-service  corporations  to  a  percentage  sufficient 

mittee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation,  denied  that  the  present  scheme 
of  taxation  is  inelastic.  General  Webb  held  that  the  elastic 
provisions  of  the  scheme  had  never  been  employed;  namely,  the 
provisions  for  levying  a  State  tax  upon  the  general  taxpayer. 
General  Webb  contended  that  the  scheme  should  not  be 
regarded    as    a    failure    until    this    had    been    tried. 


Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem       33 

to  make  their  taxes  proportionately  the  equal  of  those 
of  the  general  taxpayer,  was  not  followed.  The  in- 
creases recommended  ranged  from  a  little  more  than 
seven  per  cent,  increase  for  the  telephone  and  telegraph 
companies,  to  a  little  less  than  15  per  cent,  increase  for 
the  gas  and  electric  companies.39  The  recommended  in- 
creases contemplated  a  10  per  cent,  increase  in  the  total 
tax  paid  by  the  several  corporations.  Under  the  pro- 
posed increases  approximately  $2,700,000  would  be 
added  to  the  State's  revenues  for  the  biennial  period. 
This  was  within  $100,000  of  budget  requirements,  but 
it  did  not  make  up  the  loss  of  $840,000  a  year — approx- 
imately $1,700,000  for  the  biennial  period — because  of 
the  loss  of  State  income  from  poll  taxes.  The  recom- 
mendations, therefore,  failed  in  the  purpose  of  the 
proceedings.  Under  the  recommendations  the  prospect- 
ive deficit  would  not  be  met ;  nor  would  the  tax  burdens 
of  public-service  corporation  and  of  general  taxpayer 
be  equalized. 

Nevertheless,  the  Legislature  adopted  the  recom- 
mendations and  made  them  the  basis  of  the  attempted 
readjustment.  The  Legislature  did  this,  not  because  the 
readjustment  was  regarded  as  satisfactory — indeed,  all 
who  knew  anything  about  it,  regarded  it  as   decidedly 

39  The  recommendations  involved  the  following  changes  in 
the  percentage  tax  paid  by  the  several  groups  of  corporations  on 
their  gross  earnings: 

Railroads    from   4.75   per   cent,    to  5.25    per   cent. 

Gas  &  Electric   companies  from  4.60   per  cent,   to  5.25   per   cent. 

Telephone  &  Telegraph  companies  from  4.20  per  cent,  to  4.50 
per    cent. 

Express   companies   reduced   from   2   per   cent,    to    1.60    per   cent. 

Car  companies   reduced   from   4   per  cent,   to   3.95   per   cent. 

The  further  recommendation  was  made  that  the  percentage 
taxes  of  banks  and  on  general  franchises  be  increased  from  one 
per  cent,   to   1.20  per  cent. 


34       Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem 

unsatisfactory — but  because  the  Legislature  had  neither 
the  machinery  nor  the  time  to  make  more  practical 
readjustment. 

There  were,  of  course,  members  in  both  houses  who 
recognized  the  proposed  readjustment  to  be  unjust  to 
the  men  and  women  of  California  who  are  called  upon 
to  meet  the  public  expenses.  But  in  all  the  Legislature, 
there  was  but  one  member,  Kehoe  of  Humboldt,  who 
gave  practical   opposition. 

When  in  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation, 
the  question  of  the  increase  in  the  rates  of  gas  and 
electric  companies  came  up,  Kehoe  showed  that  by 
giving  the  corporations  affected  all  the  best  of  the 
figures,  they  would,  with  the  increased  raise,  pay  not 
more  than  $1.00  on  the  $100  valuation.  This  was  far 
below  the  $1.21   or  more  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer. 

"The  proposed  5.25  gross-earnings  rate  for  gas  and 
electric  companies,"  insisted  Kehoe,  "is  an  unjust  dis- 
crimination against  the  people  of  California.  If  the 
people  were  in  a  position  to  go  into  court  and  contest 
these  rates,  as  a  corporation  could  and  would  do,  such 
disproportionate   rates  would  not  be   established." 

Not  a  man  present  disputed  Kehoe's  statement.  They 
knew  him  to  be  right.  But  when  Kehoe  moved  that 
the  committee  fix  the  rate  on  gross  earnings  at  6  per 
cent.,  as  a  sort  of  happy  compromise,  he  was  given 
little  support.  The  attitude  of  those  who  opposed  Kehoe 
was  fairly  expressed  by  Assemblyman  McKnight. 

"I  am,"  said  McKnight,  "going  to  accept  our  ex- 
perts' figures,  although  I  could  not  testify  as  to  my 
reason  for  so  doing.  But  the  experts  are  in  charge 
of   this   matter,  and   with    conditions   such   as   they  are, 


Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem       35 

there  is  nothing  for  me  to  do  but  to  accept  their  judg- 
ment." 

Assemblyman  Prendergast 40  moved  as  substitute 
for  Kehoe's  motion  that  the  gas  and  electric  rate  be 
fixed  in  accordance  with  the  experts'  recommendation. 
Prendergast's  motion  prevailed,  Shartell  being  the  only 
member  of  the  joint  committee  who  voted  with  Kehoe 
against  Prendergast's  motion. 

Those  who  voted  for  Prendergast's  motion  and 
against  raising  the  gas  and  electric  companies'  rates  to 
a  point  beyond  the  $0.99  on  the  $100  actual  valuation 
recommended  were :  Assemblymen  Meek,  Anderson, 
Conard,  Fish,  Kennedy,  McKnight,  Mauser,  Phelps, 
Prendergast,  Wiederman,  H.  W.  Wright ;  Senators 
Cogswell,  Thompson,  Birdsall,  Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  Flint, 
Maddux. 

No  other  practical  effort  was  made  to  compel  more 
equitable  readjustment.  Men,  who  like  Kehoe  recog- 
nized   the    inequalities,    saw    the    futility    of    opposition. 


40  Prendergast  was,  at  the  time  the  1915  Legislature  convened, 
and  had  been  for  many  years,  an  employee  of  the  Pacific  Tele- 
phone and  Telegraph  Company.  The  Special  Report  on  Compara- 
tive Tax  Rates,  made  by  the  State  Board  of  Equalization  in  1913, 
showed  that  of  the  $53,321,040  values  in  telephone  and  telegraph 
properties  in  the  State,  $42,332,553  were  of  the  Pacific  Telephone 
and  Telegraph  Company.  The  average  tax  (ad  valorem  basis)  paid 
by  the  telephone  companies  in  1912  was  $0.90  on  the  $100  of 
actual  values.  This  was  almost  twenty-four  cents  below  the 
rate  paid  by  the  general  taxpayer.  But  the  majority  of  the 
smaller  telephone  companies  were  paying  a  higher  rate  than  that 
paid  by  the  general  taxpayer,  their  rates  running  up  as  high  as 
$1.89.  The  low  average  rate  paid  by  the  telephone  and  telegraph 
companies  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Pacific  Telephone  and 
Telegraph  Company,  owning  four-fifths  of  the  entire  telephone 
properties  of  the  State,  was  paying  only  $0.8476  on  the  $100. 
The  enormous  interest  of  the  Pacific  Telephone  and  Telegraph 
Company  in  the  taxation  issue  before  the  1915  session  of  the 
Legislature    is    apparent. 


36       Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem 

The  bill  providing  for  the  new  rates  passed  the  Senate 
without  a  dissenting  vote.41 

In  the  Assembly  some  opposition  to  the  details  of 
the  readjustment  developed.  Several  attempts  were 
made  to  increase  the  corporations'  rates.  The  debate  on 
these  proposed  increases  only  emphasized  the  unpre- 
paredness  of  the  Legislature  to  deal  with  the  issue. 
The  rate  which  above  all  others  should,  on  the  showing 
that  had  been  made,  have  been  raised,  was  that  of  the 
gas  and  electric  companies.  But  on  the  gross  earnings 
basis,  the  gas  and  electric  companies'  rate  had  been 
fixed  at  5.25  per  cent.  The  rate  of  the  telephone  and 
telegraph  companies,  paying  proportionately  more  than 
the  gas  and  electric  companies  had  been  fixed  at  4.50 
per  cent.  Assemblyman  Canepa,  seeing  only  the  fig- 
ures, offered  an  amendment  to  increase  the  rate  of  the 
telephone  and  telegraph  companies  to  5.25  per  cent., 
the  same  percentage  rate  as  had  been  fixed  for  the  gas 
and  electric  companies. 

When  the  bill  came  to  final  vote,  one  member  only, 
Hawson  of  Fresno,  voted  against  it.42 


41  The   measure   was   known   as   Senate   bill    24.     The   vote   was: 
For     the     bill — Senators     Anderson,     Ballard,     Beban,     Benedict, 

Benson.    Birdsall,    Brown,    Butler,    Campbell,    Carr,    Cogswell,    Cohn, 
Crowley,     Duncan,     Finn,     Flaherty,     Flint,     Gerdes,     Hans,     Irwin, 
Jones,    Kehoe,    King,    Luce,    Lyon,    Maddux,    Rush,    Scott,    Shearer, 
Thompson,    Tyrrell   and   Wolfe — 32. 
Against  the  bill — None. 

42  The   Assembly  vote   on    Senate   Bill   24    was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Arnerich,  Avey,  Bartlett, 
Beck,  Benton,  Boude,  Boyce,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B.; 
Burke,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard,  Den- 
nett, Downing,  Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Gelder, 
Godsil,  Harris,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Judson, 
Kennedy,  Kerr,  Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter,  Lyon,  Manning,  Mar- 
ron,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  Walter  A.;  McKnight,  Meek, 
Mouser,  Pettis,  Phelps,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Quinn,  Ream,  Rig- 
don,  Rodgers,  Rominger,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Schmitt, 
Scott,    Chas.    E.;    Scott,    Fred    C;    Scott,    L.    D.;    Sharkey,    Shartel, 


Meeting  the  Biennial  Tax  Problem       37 

Sisson,    Spengler,    Widenmann,    Wills,    Wishard,    Wright,    H.    W.; 
Wright,    T.    M.,    and    Mr.    Speaker — 70. 

Against  the  bill — Assemblyman  Hawson — 1. 
Mr.  Hawson's  explanation  of  his  vote  was  as  follows: 
"In  voting  as  I  did  upon  Senate  Bill  No.  24,  the  Revenue  and 
Taxation  measure,  I  was  prompted  by  the  conviction  that  the 
system  of  taxation  now  in  vogue  in  this  State  is  without  basis 
of  reason,  justice  or  equity;  that  the  principle  underlying  this 
measure  fails  to  take  into  account  community  created  and  com- 
munity owned  values  that  are  available  for,  and  should  be  the 
basis  of,  our  taxation  system,  and  substitutes  for  a  definite, 
certain  and  easily  ascertained  basis  one  that  is  fluctuating  and 
uncertain.  Further,  I  was  actuated  by  the  honest  conviction 
that  a  system  which  differentiates  between  the  power  of  the 
Legislature  to  increase  the  rate  of  taxation  imposed  upon  public 
service  corporations,  and  its  power  to  increase  the  rate  of  taxa- 
tion imposed  upon  individual  taxpayers,  is  inequitable  and  un- 
warranted." 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Patching  Up  a  Bad  Jon. 

The  Legislature  in  its  groping  readjustment  of  the 
tax  rates  paid  by  the  public-service  corporations  had  not 
even  solved  the  problem  of  the  State's  immediate  needs. 
There  was  still  approximately  $1,700,000  for  the  bien- 
nial period  to  be  made  up.  Since  the  large  sum  could 
not  now  be  assessed  against  the  corporations  chargeable 
with  a  gross  earnings  tax  for  State  purposes,  the  Leg- 
islature had  to  turn  to  other  sources. 

There  were,  however,  several  methods  by  which  the 
prospective  deficit  could  be  avoided : 

( 1 )  A  general  State  ad  valorem  tax  could  be  levied 
upon  all  property.  This  would  compel  the  general  tax- 
payer, in  addition  to  paying  all  local  taxes,  to  pay  a 
State  tax. 

(2)  The  State  apportionment  for  public  schools 
could  be  cut  down  $800,000  a  year,  leaving  the  districts 
to  raise  the  money  by  direct  tax.  In  a  somewhat  dis- 
guised form,  this  plan  was  about  the  same  in  effect  as 
the  first.  The  general  taxpayer  would  be  called  upon 
to  meet  the  deficit  by  direct  tax. 

(3)  The  corporation  license  tax  could  be  re-estab- 
lished. This  tax,  some  years  before,  had  been  declared 
unconstitutional  by  the  State  Supreme  Court.  The  1913 
Legislature  accordingly  repealed  the  law.  The  State 
Supreme    Court,     following    a    later    Federal    decision, 


Patching  Up  a  Bad  Job  39 

then  reversed  itself  and  held  the  Corporation  License 
tax  to  be  constitutional.  But  as  the  law,  between  the 
two  decisions,  had  been  repealed,  the  second  decision 
did  not  help  the  State. 

(4)  The  personal  inheritance  tax,  which  yielded  the 
State  $2,500,000  in  1914,  could  be  increased,  or  better 
methods  could  be  provided  for  hunting  out  estates 
that  come  under  the  provisions  of  the  act.  This  tax 
could,  it  was  held,  very  readily  be  increased  another 
$800,000  a  year. 

(5)  An  income  tax  could  be  levied  for  State  pur- 
poses. Under  this  plan,  those  who  would  come  under 
the  provision  of  a  State  Income  Tax  law,  in  addition 
to  paying  local  taxes,  would  be  called  upon  to  pay  an 
additional  State  tax.  The  corporations  would,  however, 
still  be  relieved  of  all  local  taxes  on  their  operative 
property. 

Suggestion  that  any  of  these  methods  be  employed 
was,  of  course,  opposed  by  those  who  would  pay  the  tax. 

There  remained  another  solution,  however,  which  was 
unique  in  that  it  was  favored  by  those  who  would  pay 
the  tax,  and  opposed  most  vigorously  by  those  who 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  its  payment.  The  State 
could  levy  a  license  tax  upon  saloons  for  State  pur- 
poses. 

Liquor  interests  were  not  only  willing  to  have  such 
a  tax  imposed,  but  had  been  advocating  it  for  several 
years.  Attempts  had  indeed  been  made  at  previous 
sessions  to  secure  enactment  of  laws  to  that  end.  Such 
measures,  while  supported  by  legislators  who  were  not 
unfriendly  to  the   liquor   interests,  had  been   vigorously 


40  Patching  Up  a  Bad  Job 

and  successfully  opposed  by  the  temperance  forces.43 
The  principal  argument  advanced  against  such  legisla- 
tion was,  that  the  liquor  interests,  having  a  State 
license  in  addition  to  a  Federal  license,  would  be  given 
a  hold  which  would  greatly  increase  the  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  practical  solution  of  the  liquor  problem. 

The  situation  at  Sacramento  at  the  opening  of  the 
1915  session,  offered  the  liquor  people  exceptional  op- 
portunity for  carrying  out  their  plans  for  a  State 
license.  The  responsibility  of  meeting  the  prospective 
deficit  in  the  State's  revenues  was  burdening  the  admin- 
istration. The  public-service  corporations  were  oppos- 
ing suggested  increase  of  their  gross-income  rates. 
Governor  Johnson  had  taken  the  position  that  he  would 
not  approve  the  imposition  of  an  ad  valorem  State  tax 
upon  the  general  taxpayer.  The  willing  liquor  interests 
apparently  offered  a  way  out.41  The  State  authorities 
were  inclined  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity. 

Furthermore,  when  the  legislators  arrived  at  Sacra- 
mento,  several   of   the   most   prominent   of  the   temper- 


43  See  Senate  Bill  804,  1913  series.  This  measure  imposed  an 
annual  license  tax  of  $100  upon  retail  liquor  dealers  and  of  $200 
upon  wholesale  dealers.  In  each  instance  one-half  the  tax  was 
to  go  to  the  State  and  one-half  to  the  political  subdivision  in 
which  the  licensed  establishment  was  located.  The  bill  did  not 
get    through    the    Senate. 

44  The  Sacramento  Bee,  in  its  issue  of  December  30,  1914, 
after  reciting  the  efforts  being  made  to  meet  the  situation, 
continued: 

"The  plan  that  first  comes  into  the  minds  of  most  people,  and 
one  which  probably  would  give  general  satisfaction,  is  to  obtain 
that  money  by  putting  a  tax  on  liquor — to  be  more  specific,  on 
the   saloons. 

"There  are  17,000  saloons  in  the  State  of  California  A  tax 
of  $100  per  year  on  each  saloon  would  raise  $1,700,000  per  year 
from    that    source    alone. 

"The  idea  among  those  who  advocate  strongly  this  method  of 
procuring  additional  necessary  revenues  is  that  this  tax  should 
be  $150  or  so — so  that  if  a  great  number  of  saloons  went  out  of 
business,    still    the    revenue   raised   would   be  about   sufficient." 


Patching  Up  a  Bad  Job  41 

ance  and  prohibition  leaders  among  them  signified  their 
approval  of  the  State  liquor-tax  plan.  Again,  was 
failure  to  grasp  the  problem  apparent.  The  claque 
at  the  capital  which  was  advocating  the  State  liquor 
license,  was  active  in  making  it  appear  that  unless  this 
plan  were  adopted,  the  prospective  deficit  would  have 
to  be  made  up  by  an  ad  valorem  State  tax  upon  general 
taxpayers.  Some  of  the  most  pronounced  opponents  of 
the  liquor  traffic  took  the  ground  that  when  it  comes  to 
a  choice  between  increasing  the  tax  burden  of  the  peo- 
ple, or  taxing  the  saloon,  they  would  put  the  tax  upon 
the  saloon. 

But,  however  favorably  viewed  at  Sacramento,  the 
proposed  State  license  for  saloons  was  not  received 
with  favor  throughout  the  State.  Both  Houses  re- 
ceived numerous  protests  against  such  recognition  of 
the   liquor  traffic.     The   plan   was  finally  abandoned. 

It  was  not  until  the  closing  days  of  the  session 
that  definite  steps  were  taken  to  meet  the  emergency. 
This   was   done : 

( 1 )  By  restoring  the  corporation  license  tax,  which 
had  been  abandoned  in  1913  under  the  first  decision 
of  the  State  Supreme  Court.  It  was  estimated  that 
from  $600,000  to  $750,000  a  year  would  be  derived 
from   this   source. 

(2)  By  readjustment,  and  in  a  number  of  in- 
stances  advancement,   of   inheritance   tax   rates. 

But  none  regarded  the  solution  of  the  problem 
accomplished.  The  1915  Legislature  had  taken  make- 
shift method  of  getting  along  for  another  two  years, 
just   as    the    1913    Legislature    had    done,    just    as    the 


42  Patching  Up  a  Bad  Job 

1911  Legislature  had  done,  and  just  as  the  1917  Leg- 
islature, unless  the  problem  be  worked  out  in  the 
meantime,   will   be   compelled   to   do. 

This  was  generally  recognized.  The  Legislature 
accordingly  undertook  the  preliminary  work  for  the 
substitution  of  a  more  practical  revenue  and  taxation 
system. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Attempted    Solution    of    Tax    Problem. 

At  the  1913  session,  members  of  both  Houses  had 
recognized  that  steps  should  then  be  taken  toward 
practical  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  State's  rev- 
enues. But  no  plan  which  met  with  general  approval 
was  offered.  Nevertheless,  several  were  suggested. 
Avey  in  the  Senate  and  Cram  in  the  Assembly  intro- 
duced constitutional  amendments  to  do  away  with  the 
present  arrangement,  and  to  restore  the  ad  valorem 
system  which  had  been  discarded  in  1910.  While 
members  of  the  1913  Revenue  and  Taxation  Commit- 
tees recognized  the  v/eaknesses  of  the  new  system, 
they  were  not  prepared  to  recommend  a  return  to  the 
old.  The  proposed  change  did  not  get  beyond  com- 
mittee consideration. 

Other  members  of  the  1913  Legislature,  prominent 
among  them  Senator  Newton  Thompson,  proposed  a 
commission  to  consider  the  problem,  and  report  to  the 
Legislature  of  1915.  Senator  Thompson  and  his  asso- 
ciates held  that  unless  this  were  done,  the  1915  session 
would  be  as  unprepared  to  meet  the  situation  as  the 
1913  had  been  found  to  be.  The  truth  of  this  con- 
tention was  generally  recognized.  But  it  was  diffi- 
cult to  arouse  interest.  As  a  result,  nothing  was  done. 
The  1913  Legislature  adjourned  without  provision 
for  such  a  commission   having  been   made. 

When  the  1915  Legislature  met.  Senator  Thompson 


44      Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem 

not  only  continued  his  advocacy  for  the  appointment 
of  a  tax  commission  but  introduced  a  bill  to  that  end. 

This  measure  (Senate  Bill  962)  empowered  the 
Governor  to  direct  any  State  officer,  or  to  appoint 
or  authorize  the  employment  of  any  expert  or  other 
assistants  to  investigate  the  systems  of  revenue  and 
taxation  in  force  in  this  and  other  States,  and  to  make 
special  investigation  into  the  existing  California  system. 
Provision  was  also  made  that  the  commission  should 
report  its  findings  and  conclusions,  with  recommenda- 
tions as  to  changes  in  the  existing  system,  to  the  1917 
Legislature.  To  meet  the  expenses  of  the  work, 
$75,000  was  provided. 

The  measure  met  with  little  opposition.  The  need 
for  the  investigation  contemplated  was  apparent.  But 
two  adverse  votes  were  called  against  the  bill  in  the 
Senate,  and  none  in  the   Assembly.45 

The  most  important  matter  to  come  before  the 
1917  Legislature  will  be  this  commission's  report  and 
findings.  But  even  with  the  report  before  them,  the 
members  of  the  1917  Legislature  will  be  under  serious 
handicap.      Agents    of    large    interests    who    have   been 


45  The  vote   by   which   Senate   Bill   962   was   passed  was: 

In  the  Senate,  for  Senate  Bill  962 — Senators  Anderson,  Benedict, 
Benson,  Birdsall,  Brown,  Butler,  Campbell,  Chandler,  Cogswell, 
Cohn,  Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Luce, 
Lyon,  Maddux,  Mott,  Owens,  Slater,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and 
Wolfe— 26. 

Against   Senate   Bill   962 — Senators   Duncan    and    Purkitt — 2. 

In  the  Assembly,  for  Senate  Bill  9G2 — Assemblymen  Anderson. 
Arnerich,  Ashley,  Benton,  Boude,  Boyce,  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Burke, 
Byrnes,  Canepa,  Collins,  Conard,  Downing,  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Ellis, 
Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris,  Hawson,  Hayes.  D. 
R. ;  Judson,  Kerr,  Lostutter,  Lyon,  Marron,  McCray,  McDonald,  W. 
A.;  Meek,  Mouser,  Phelps,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Quinn,  Ream, 
Scott,  F.  C. ;  Sharkey,  Sisson,  Wills,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T. 
M.,  and  Mr.    Speaker — 44. 

Against   Senate   Bill   962— None. 


Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem      45 

studying  the  problem  for  years  will  be  on  the  ground. 
These  agents  will  be  informed  of  every  detail  of  the 
commission's  report.  Comparatively  few  members  of 
the  Legislature  will  have  any  knowledge  of  the  report 
at  all.  The  agents  will  know  just  what  is  to  the  best 
advantage  of  their  corporations.  They  will  know  ex- 
actly what  they  want.  Moreover,  they  will  have  been 
in  personal  touch  with  members  of  the  commission, 
with  constant  tactful  suggestions  as  to  what  the  report 
should  contain. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
will  not  have  been  in  touch  with  the  commissioners. 
They  will,  with  few  exceptions,  have  little  idea  as  to 
which  parts  of  the  report,  if  any,  should,  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  State,  be  rejected  and  which  adopted. 
Nor  will  they,  during  the  three  months  or  less  period 
of  the  session,  have  opportunity  to  inform  themselves. 
This  will  not  be  the  fault  of  the  members.  It  will, 
however,  be  the  fault  of  a  legislative  system  which  no 
longer  meets  the  requirements  of  the  State.  Whatever 
changes  the  legislators  adopt  will  have  to  be  on  their 
faith  in  the  commission,  or  on  the  suggestion,  or  at 
the   dictation,   of   others. 

Having  provided  for  a  commission  to  report  at 
the  1917  session,  the  Legislature  anticipated  anything 
which  the  commission  may  recommend,  by  adopting  a 
constitutional  amendment  which,  had  it  been  ratified 
by  The  People,  would  have  made  radical  changes  in 
the  present  constitutional  restrictions  governing  tax- 
ation.40 

4fi  This  amendment  was  defeated   at  the  polls,   October  2C,   1915. 


46      Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem 

The  development  of  the  campaign  for  the  sub- 
mission of  this  amendment  is  interesting.  Early  in 
the  session  there  was  more  or  less  talk  about  the  lob- 
bies to  the  effect  that  when  a  new  system  of  revenue 
and  taxation  should  be  adopted,  it   should  provide : 

(1)  That  the  subject  of  taxation  should  be  left  to 
the   Legislature. 

(2)  That  the  assessment  of  property  and  the  im- 
position and  collection  of  taxes,  should  be  centralized 
and   in   control  of  a   State   commission. 

The  suggestions  were  not  new.  They  had  been 
thrown  out  long  before  the  Legislature  convened.  But 
as  the  average  man  on  the  street  is  no  better  equipped 
as  a  tax  expert  than  is  the  average  member  of  the 
Legislature,  few  appreciated  the  importance  of  the 
suggestions.  At  any  rate,  there  was  little  or  no  ex- 
pression of  opinion  one  way  or  the  other.  So  far  as 
the  writer  knows,  the  source  of  the  agitation  for  the 
proposed  change  was  the  California  State  Tax  Asso- 
ciation. 

The  work  of  this  association  is  supported  by  a 
number  of  large  taxpayers.  John  S.  Drum,  the  San 
Francisco  banker,  is  the  association's  chief  sponsor. 
For  a  time  its  secretary  was  Alex.  Brown.  Brown  has 
been  a  familiar  figure  in  California  politics  for  years. 
He  was  long  one  of  the  lesser  leaders  of  the  "organ- 
ization." After  Brown's  resignation  as  secretary  his 
place  was  filled  by  Dudley  Cates.  The  association 
is  doing  in  the  interest  of  large  taxpayers  what  the 
State  should  be  doing  in  the  interest  of  all  taxpayers, 
namely,  collecting  data  on  revenue  and  taxation,  and 
formulating  plans  for  changes  in  the  present  system. 


Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem      47 

In  a  pamphlet  issued  in  February,  1915,46a  the  as- 
sociation recommended  that  the  system  of  assessment 
and  tax  collection  be  centralized,  and  that  the  Legis- 
lature be  relieved  of  constitutional  restraint  in  the 
matter  of  assessment  and  tax  levy.  The  association's 
influence  in  behalf  of  the  plan  was  felt,  however,  as 
early  as  January,  and  to  the  association  is  no  doubt 
due  the  quiet  publicity  work,  which  had  been  going  on 
even  before  the  Legislature  convened,  in  behalf  of  the 
proposed    changes. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  first  part  of  the  session, 
Senator  Newton  W.  Thompson  introduced  two  con- 
stitutional amendments  dealing  with  the  taxation  prob- 
lem. 

Lender  the  first  of  these  amendments  (S.  C.  A.  30) 
the  Legislature  was  "authorized  and  empowered  to 
revise,  amend  or  annul  by  statutory  enactment,  any,  or 
all,  of  the  provisions  of  Section  14  of  this  article 
(Article  XIII,  State  Constitution)  relative  to  the  sep- 
aration of  State  and  local  taxation  of  public  service 
and  other  corporations. 

The  second  amendment  (S.  C.  A.  31)  provided  for 
a  State  tax  commission  of  three  members  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Governor.  The  commission  was  em- 
powered to  supervise  and  control  the  administration  of 
all  laws  providing  for  the  assessment  of  property  and 
the  imposition  and  collection  of  taxes ;  to  prescribe 
and  enforce  rules  and  regulations  for  the  direction  of 
all  assessors  and  local  boards  of  equalization ;  to  exer- 

4f,a  "The  Problem  of  Taxation  in  California."  This  pamphlet 
r-an  he  had  hy  addressing  Dudley  ('ales,  Secretary  of  the  Cali- 
fornia  State   Tax    Association,    Tlohart    Building,   San   Francisco. 


48      Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem 

cise  all  powers  and  perform  all  duties  imposed  upon 
the  State  Board  of  Equalization,  to  assess  or  equalize 
the  assessment  of  all  classes  of  property  as  prescribed 
by  law. 

These  amendments  did  not  get  further  than  the 
Senate    Judiciary    Committee. 

During  the  legislative  recess,  and  in  the  opening 
days  of  the  second  part  of  the  session,  numerous  confer- 
ences were  held  among  those  directly  interested  in  the 
taxation  problem.  The  California  State  Tax  Associa- 
tion was  represented  at  these  conferences,  as  were  the 
large  public-service  corporations.  Of  the  members  of 
the  Legislature  in  attendance  Senator  Thompson  was 
by  all  odds  the  best  informed.  But  Senator  Thompson 
had  numerous  other  demands  upon  his  attention.  The 
representatives  of  the  Tax  Association  and  public-service 
corporations  on  the  other  hand  were  able  to  give 
undivided  attention  to  the  deliberations.  And  the  fact 
should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  these  representatives 
of  private  interests  were  there  in  behalf  of  private 
interests.  Incidentally,  it  may  be  added  that  these 
private  interests  were  not  paying  experts  to  go  to 
Sacramento  to  influence  legislative  action  that  would 
increase  their  tax  bills. 

As  a  result  of  these  conferences  a  new  constitu- 
tional amendment  (S.  C.  A.  38)  was  finally  intro- 
duced.47    Broadly  speaking,   this   amendment   contained 

47  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  38  was  the  result  of 
several  conferences  at  which  various  drafts  were  considered.  A 
dm  ft  submitted  by  Warren  Olney,  Jr.,  Attorney  for  the  Western 
Pacific  Railroad  Company,  provided  for  a  State  Tax  Commission 
of  three  members  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor.  This  Com- 
mission was  (1)  given  the  present  powers  of  the  State  Board  of 
Equalization,     (2)    empowered    to    equalize    particular    assessments 


Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem      49 

the  two  principal  provisions  of  the  amendments  intro- 
duced by  Thompson  during  the  first  part  of  the  ses- 
sion. Upon  the  Legislature  was  conferred  the  power 
to  define  and  classify  the  subjects  of  taxation,  to  pre- 
scribe the  manner  and  method  of  assessing,  levying, 
equalizing  and  collecting  taxes.  Further  provision  was 
made  for  doing  away  with  the  State  Board  of  Equal- 


upon  the  county  assessment  rolls  save  insofar  as  such  duties 
or  powers  may  be  discharged  by  law,  (3)  given  general  super- 
vision of  the  entire  system  of  taxation  throughout  the  State, 
(4)  given  exclusive  powers  in  the  assessment  of  the  operative 
properties  of  public  service  corporations.  The  further  provision 
was  made  that  "nothing  in  this  constitution  shall  be  taken  to 
forbid  provisions  being  made  by  law  for  the  taxation  of  different 
classes  of  property  by  different  methods,  provided  only  that 
in  creating  such  different  classes  of  property  and  providing 
different  methods  for  their  taxation  the  purpose  be  observed  of 
having  all  classes  pay  the  same  rate  of  taxation  upon  an  ad 
valorem  basis,  so  far  as  the  same  can  be  reasonably  accom- 
plished." 

The  draft  submitted  by  the  California  State  Tax  Association 
provided  definitely  that  "The  power  to  provide,  by  general  laws, 
for  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  and  assessments,  of  every 
kind  and  character,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  debts  of  and 
providing  revenues  for  the  State  and  all  of  its  political  sub- 
divisions and  municipal  corporations,  is  hereby  vested  in  The 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  California,  subject  to  the  limitations 
contained  in  Sections  Twelve  and  Thirteen  of  Article  XI  of  this 
Constitution." 

The  amendment,  as  it  was  finally  adopted  by  both  Houses  and 
submitted   to   The   People,    read   as   follows: 

First — Section  one  of  article  thirteen  of  the  Constitution  is 
hereby  amended   to  read  as  follows: 

Section  1.  All  taxes  shall  be  levied  and  collected  under 
general  laws  and  shall  be  uniform  upon  the  same  class  of 
subjects  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  authority  levying  the 
tax.  The  Legislature  shall  define  and  classify  the  subjects  of 
taxation,  and  prescribe  the  manner  and  methods  of  assessing, 
levying,  equalizing  and  collecting  taxes,  for  State,  county,  city 
nnd  county,  municipal  and  district  revenues.  In  the  exercise 
of  this  power  the  Legislature  may  designate  certain  classes  of 
subjects  as  taxable  in  whole  or  in  part  for  State  revenue,  and 
certain  classes  as  taxable  in  whole  or  in  part  for  county,  city 
and  county,  municipal  and  district  revenue,  and  may  provide 
that  any  tax  shall  be  in  lieu  of  any  or  all  other  taxes  or  licenses, 
or  both.  The  Legislature  shall  provide  for  the  administration 
of  such  laws  by  a  State  Tax  Commission,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tions contained  in  sections  twelve  and  thirteen  of  article  eleven 
of   this    Constitution. 

The  following  shall  not  be  subjects  of  taxation:  A  mortgage, 
deed  of  trust,  or  other  obligation  by  which  a  debt  is  secured 
when  land  is  pledged  as  security  for  the  payment  thereof, 
together  with  the  moneys  represented  by  such  debt,  property 
used    for    free    public    libraries    or    free    museums,    growing    crops. 


50      Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem 

ization,  after  the  terms  for  which  the  present  incum- 
bents have  been  elected  shall  have  expired.  And, 
finally,  provision  was  made  for  a  State  Tax  Commis- 
sion. Thus  the  framers  of  this  amendment  came  back 
every  time  to  the  two  things  for  which  a  very  clever 
publicity  campaign  was  being"  carried  on,  namely,  a  free 
hand  for  the  Legislature  in  matters  of  taxation,  a 
State  Tax  Commission,  removed  from  local  control,  to 

property  used  exclusively  for  public  schools,  property  owned 
by  the  United  States,  this  State  or  any  county,  city  and  county, 
municipal  corporation  or  district  in  this  State,  improvements 
of  any  character  constructed  by  any  county,  city  and  county 
or  municipality,  other  property  specified  in  this  Constitution  as 
exempt  from  taxation;  Provided,  that  land  and  improvements 
thereon  located  outside  of  the  county,  city  and  county  or 
municipality  owning  the  same  that  were  subject  to  taxation  at 
the  time  of  its  acquisition  by  such  county,  city  and  county  or 
municipality,  shall  be  a  subject  of  taxation.  All  lands  or  im- 
provements thereon,  belonging  to  any  county,  city  and  county, 
or  municipal  corporation,  not  exempt  from  taxation,  shall  be 
assessed  within  the  county,  city  and  county,  or  municipal  cor- 
poration in  which  said  lands  or  improvements  are  located,  and 
said  assessment  shall  be  subject  to  review,  equalization  and 
adjustment  by  the  State  Tax  Commission,  after  such  duties 
have   ceased    to   be    exercised   by   the    State   Board   of   Equalization. 

The  Legislature  may  provide,  except  in  the  case  of  credits 
secured  by  mortgage  or  deed  of  trust,  for  a  deduction  from  credits 
of    debts    due    bona    fide    residents    of    this    State. 

The  adoption  of  this  section  shall  not  affect  nor  release  any 
assessment  or  tax  levy  heretofore  made  nor  the  collection  thereof, 
and  all  laws  relating  to  the  assessment,  levy  and  collection  of 
taxes  in  force  at  the  time  of  adoption  this  section  shall  remain 
in   full   force   until  changed   by   the   Legislature. 

Second — Section  nine  of  article  thirteen  of  said  Constitution 
is   hereby   amended   to   read   as   follows: 

Sec.  9.  The  State  Board  of  Equalization,  as  constituted 
at  the  time  this  amendment  shall  take  effect,  shall  continue  in 
existence  and  the  present  members  of  said  Board  shall  continue 
in  office  until  the  first  Monday  in  January,  nineteen  hundred 
nineteen,  at  which  time  said  terms  of  office  shall  expire  and 
said  Board  cease  to  exist.  All  powers  and  duties  conferred 
upon  said  Board  either  by  law  or  by  this  Constitution  shall  con- 
tinue until  said  first  Monday  in  January,  nineteen  hundred  nine- 
teen,   unless    sooner    changed    by    the    Legislature. 

Third — Section  ten  of  article  thirteen  of  the  Constitution  is 
hereby    repealed. 

Fourth — Section  fourteen  of  article  thirteen  of  the  Constitu- 
tion is  hereby  repealed;  provided,  however,  that  the  repeal  of 
this  section  shall  not  affect  or  release  any  assessment  or  tax 
levy  heretofore  made  under  authority  of  said  section  and  all 
laws  heretofore  enacted  by  the  Legislature  to  carry  said  section 
into  effect  and  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  repeal 
.shall    remain   in    full    force   until    changed   by   the    Legislature. 


Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem      51 

administer  the  revenue  laws  of  the  State  and  its  politi- 
cal  subdivisions. 

The  measure  was  made  subject  of  several  hearings 
before  the  committees  on  Revenue  and  Taxation.  The 
public-service  corporations  and  other  large  tax-paying 
interests  were  well  represented  at  all  these  meetings, 
but  for  the  most  part  their  agents  contented  them- 
selves with  watching  the  proceedings  without  commit- 
ting themselves. 

Curiously  enough,  the  active  opposition  to  the 
amendment  was  not  based  upon  the  questionable  policy 
of  conferring  upon  the  Legislature  the  responsibilities 
which  it  provided,  nor  upon  the  objections  that  can  be 
made  to  conferring  extraordinary  powers  of  assessing 
and  tax  levying  upon  a  central  body.  The  attack 
was  made  upon  the  provision  which  did  away  with  the 
State  Board  of  Equalization.  This  provision  stirred 
the  members  of  that  board  and  their  associates  to 
great  activity.  Somebody's  job  was  in  danger.  There 
was  a  rallying  to  the  support  of  that  job.  The  rev- 
enues of  the  State  might  drift  into  even  more  com- 
plete tangle,  a  system  of  assessing  and  tax  levying 
might  be  foisted  upon  the  State  which  would  give 
the  large  taxpayer  even  greater  advantage  over  the 
small  taxpayer  than  he  now  has.  But  these  consid- 
erations sank  into  insignificance  in  comparison  with 
the  importance  of  the  threatened  jobs.  On  the  basis  of 
the  jobs,  the  issue  was  fought  out.  There  were,  of 
course,  members  who  opposed  the  amendment  because 
they  questioned  the  policy  of  its  more  important  pro- 
visions.    But  the  point  most  strongly  urged  against  it, 


52      Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem 

especially  in  the  Assembly,  was  its  effect  upon  those 
who  would  lose  their  positions. 

Twenty-seven  votes  in  the  Senate  were  required  to 
submit  the  amendment  to  the  electors.  It  received 
twenty-eight.48 

Fifty-four  Assembly  votes  were  required.  Thus 
twenty-seven  adverse  votes  were  sufficient  for  its  defeat 
in  the  Lower  House.  Before  it  came  to  vote  in  the 
Assembly,  the  general  impression  was  that  the  opposi- 
tion had  that  number  pledged  against  it.  But  when 
the  roll  was  called,  fifty-four  members  voted  in  the 
affirmative.49 

Among  those  who  voted  against  it,  were  Downing 
and  Spengler,  the  Socialist  members.  The  statement 
which  each  had  published  in  the  journal  in  explana- 
tion of  their  vote  set  forth  clearly  the  objection  which 
members    not    concerned    with    the    fate    of    the    State 


48  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  38 
passed   the   Senate  was: 

For  the  Amendment — Anderson,  Beban,  Benedict,  Birdsall, 
Brown,  Butler,  Campbell,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Crowley, 
Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Irwin,  Kehoe,  King,  Luce,  Lyon, 
Maddux,    Mott,    Scott,    Slater,    Thompson,    Tyrrell,    and    Wolfe— 28. 

Against  the  Amendment — Ballard,  Duncan,  Purkitt,  and  Stuck- 
enbruck — 4. 

49  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  38 
passed    the    Assembly    was: 

For  the  Amendment — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Avey,  Beck,  Boude, 
Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cheno- 
weth,  Collins,  Conard,  Dennett,  Edwards,  L. ;  Edwards,  R.  G. ; 
Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris, 
Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Kramer, 
Manning,  Marron,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  McKnight, 
McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Pettis,  Phelps,  Prendergast,  Rigdon, 
Ryan,  Satterwhite,  Scott,  F.  C. ;  Sharkey,  Shartel,  Sisson,  Tabler, 
Widenmann,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W. ;  Wright,  T.  M.,  and 
Mr.    Speaker — 54. 

Against  the  Amendment — Ashley,  Bartlett,  Benton,  Boyce, 
Bruck,  Cary,  Chamberlin,  Downing,  Hawson,  Kerr,  Long,  Los- 
tutter,  Lyon,  McCray,  Phillips,  Quinn,  Ream,  Rodgers,  Salisbury, 
Schmitt,    Scott,   C.   E. ;   Scott,   L.   D„  and    Spengler— 23. 


Attempted  Solution  of  Tax  Problem      53 

Board  of  Equalization   incumbents   and  employees,  had 
to  the  amendment. 

"I  voted  'No'  on  State  Constitutional  Amendment 
38,"  said  each,  "because  a  bill  is  pending  supported 
by  the  administration,  to  create  a  commission  to  inves- 
tigate revenue  and  taxation,  and  this  bill,  carrying  an 
appropriation  of  $75,000,  will  undoubtedly  become  a 
law.  I  think  it  wise  statesmanship  to  wait  for  the 
report  of  this  commission  before  taking  any  steps  to 
establish  a  new  tax  system." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue. 

While  the  Legislature  was  in  session,  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  State's  taxation  system  was  emphasized 
by  the  effect  upon  State  revenues  of  "jitney"  bus 
competition  with  the  street  railroads. 

At  the  time  the  members  of  the  Legislature  had 
been  elected  in  November,  the  "jitney"  bus  had  scarcely 
been  heard  of  outside  Southern  California.  Two  months 
later,  when  the  Legislature  was  grappling  with  the 
State's  revenue  problem,  the  "jitney"  bus  was  cutting 
into  the  gross  earnings  of  California  street-car  com- 
panies at  the  estimated  rate  of  $2,500,000 50  a  year. 
As  the  only  tax  these  companies  pay  on  their  operative 
properties  is  5*4  per  cent,  of  their  gross  receipts  for 
State  purposes  only,  the  State  on  the  car  companies' 
estimated  loss,  would  lose  in  taxes  something  more 
than  $130,000  a  year. 

The  Legislature  had  to  make  this  up  somehow.  The 
street  railroad  companies  for  a  considerable  part  of  the 
session  maintained  an  expensive  lobby  at  Sacramento 
to  convince  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  press  and 
general  public  that  the  deficit  should  be  met  by  taxing 
the  "jitneys." 

50  Figures  gathered  by  the  Transportation  Committee  of  the 
Oakland  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  Commercial  Club  Consoli- 
dated. Practically  the  same  figures  were  presented  by  various 
representatives  of  street-car  companies  before  Legislative  com- 
mittees. 


The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue  55 

It  soon  became  evident,  however,  that  the  purpose 
of  the  car  companies  was  not  so  much  to  raise  State 
revenues,  as  to  tax  the  "jitney"  out  of  existence. 
Corporations  which,  through  their  agents,  had  argued 
before  legislative  committees  that  the  power  to  tax  is 
the  power  to  destroy,  and  that  the  courts  would  never 
permit  the  levy  of  an  inequitable  tax  upon  corporations, 
urged,  when  it  came  to  consideration  of  the  "jitney," 
a  tax  which  would  not  only  have  been  inequitable  but 
confiscatory.  Then,  too,  in  one  breath  the  street-car 
lobbyists  insisted  that  the  "jitney"  bus  could  not  be 
operated  at  a  profit.  In  the  next,  they  contended  that 
a  heavy  State  tax  should  be  put  upon  it. 

The  first  hearing  on  this  entirely  new  issue,  in  the 
closing  days  of  the  first  part  of"  the  session,  came 
before  a  joint  meeting  of  Assembly  and  Senate  Commit- 
tees on  Revenue  and  Taxation. 

The  advantage  of  the  corporation  lobby  over  any 
possible  lobby 51  which  the  citizenry  of  the  State  can 
maintain  at  the  capital,  was  brought  out  at  this  hearing. 

The  "jitney"  bus  people  were  of  course  greatly 
interested.  So  were  the  street-car  companies.  Imme- 
diately the  meeting  was  announced,  the  lookout  lobbyist 
maintained  by  the  corporations,  notified  the  various 
companies.  This  enabled  the  companies  to  have  their 
best  men  at  the  hearing,  all  armed  with  statistics  and 
arguments  to  support  their  contentions  against  the 
"jitney"  bus. 


■r.i  For  development  of  the  "new"  Lobby  at  Sacramento  see 
"Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909."  Chapters  XXI  and 
XXII,  on  lobby  of  old  "machine"  days:  and  "Story  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Legislature  of  1913,"  Chapter  VIII,  for  the  lobby  that  has 
developed    since   the   new   order   came    in    California. 


56  The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue 

On  the  other  hand,  the  "jitney"  bus  people  had  no 
means  of  knowing  of  the  proposed  meeting  except 
through  obscure  items  in  the  newspapers. 

The  representative  of  the  San  Francisco  "jitney" 
drivers  who  appeared  at  the  hearing,  learned  of  the 
meeting  only  twenty  minutes  before  the  Sacramento 
train  left  San  Francisco.  He  caught  the  train,  arriv- 
ing at  the  capitol  while  the  committees  were  in  ses- 
sion, and  the  hearing  half  over.  Southern  California 
"jitney"  bus  men  had  no  opportunity  to  send  repre- 
sentatives. They  accordingly  wired  a  Los  Angeles  bus 
man,  who  happened  to  be  at  the  capital  on  private 
business,    to    act    for   them. 

The  hearing  was  one  of  the  most  extraordinary 
ever  held  before  a  California  legislative  committee. 

The  agents  for  the  street-railroad  companies  argued 
that  the  interests  of  the  State  are  now  interwoven  with 
the  street-car  lines ;  that  these  lines  pay  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  State  taxes.  These  taxes  are  com- 
puted upon  the  companies'  gross  receipts.  To  reduce 
these  receipts,  the  car-men  continued,  is  to  reduce  the 
taxes  the  companies  pay  the  State.  The  "jitney"  buses 
reduce  the  incomes  of  the  street-car  companies,  thereby 
reducing  the  amount  of  taxes  the  companies  pay  the 
State.  Therefore,  the  State's  interests  in  common 
with  those  of  the  car  companies,  require  that  the 
"jitney"  bus  be  discouraged. 

Manager  Black  of  the  San  Francisco  United  Rail- 
roads had  it  figured  out  that  for  every  five-seated  Ford 
doing  a  "jitney"  business,  the  State  loses  $119  a  year 
in   taxes.      Paul    Shoup,    representing   electric-car    com- 


The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue  57 

panies,  intimated  that  were  the  "jitneys"  to  be  taxed 
properly,  there  would  not  be  so  much  competition 
with  "legitimate"  street-car  business.  A  representative 
of  San  Diego  companies  read  an  argument  asking  for 
"protection"  of  investments  in  street-car  lines.  He 
held  that  "jitneys"  should  not  be  permitted  to  run  on 
streets   served  by   street   railroads. 

"If  you  fail,"  he  said  impressively,  "to  take  care  of 
capital  invested  here,  you  cannot  expect  new  capital  to 
come  in." 

All  the  car-company  representatives  insisted  that 
the  "jitney"  by  displacing  conductors  and  motormen 
works  great  injury  to  labor.  They  even  expressed  con- 
cern lest  the  "jitney"  bus  drive  the  street-car  lines 
out  of  business,  and  then  go  out  of  business  them- 
selves, leaving  the  public  without  any  street  transporta- 
tion at  all.  They  demonstrated  by  an  impressive  array 
of  figures  that  the  "jitney"  bus  cannot  be  made  to 
pay,  but  insisting  always  that  it  should  be  heavily  taxed. 

The  representatives  who  appeared  for  the  "jitney" 
bus  people  came  to  Sacramento  unprepared.  They  were 
new  to  the  ways  of  the  Legislature.  But  they  had 
more  convincing  argument  than  the  high-salaried 
army  of  corporation  representatives  who  filled  one  end 
of  the  Senate  chamber. 

The  defenders  of  the  "jitney"  bus  stated  that  the 
corporations  need  not  concern  themselves  about  the 
"jitney"  bus  proprietors  losing  money — that  was  for 
the  "jitney"  bus  proprietors  to  look  out  for.  As  for 
labor  being  driven  out  of  employment,  it  was  shown 
that  where  two  street-car  men  lose  their  jobs  because 


58  The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue 

of  the  "jitneys,"  ten  or  more  are  given  employment 
through  the  "jitney"  traffic.  As  for  the  capital  to  be 
protected,  it  was  shown  conclusively  that  the  capital  in- 
vested in  the  "jitneys"  is  California  capital — and  not 
"watered."  The  "jitney"  men  intimated  very  strongly 
that  when  it  comes  to  the  protection  of  capital,  charity 
begins   at   home. 

But  it  was  on  the  item  of  taxation  that  the  "jitney" 
bus  defenders  made  their  strongest  point. 

The  very  highest  tax  the  car  companies  could  be 
shown  to  be  paying  was  $1.21  on  the  $100  valuation. 
As  for  the  "jitneys,"  their  local  tax  at  San  Francisco, 
with  other  local  licenses  and  charges,  totals  something 
more  than  $2.00  on  each  $100.  In  addition,  they  were 
paying  various  charges  for  State  purposes  to  the 
amount  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of  the  average  car 
used,  of  $1.50  on  the  $100.  Thus,  in  addition  to  a 
large  local  tax,  which  their  chief  competitor,  the  United 
Railroads,  is  not  required  to  pay,  the  San  Francisco 
"jitney"  bus  people  showed  they  were  paying  on  the 
ad  valorem  basis — the  basis  which  in  dealing  with  the 
State  on  the  subject  of  taxation  the  corporations  insist 
upon — a  far  greater  proportionate  State  tax  than  the 
United  Railroads  was  paying.  The  same  holds  true  of 
the  relative  tax  paid  by  street-car  companies  and 
"jitney"  bus  proprietors   throughout   the   State. 

More  was  brought  out  at  the  hearing  than  the  tax 
payments  of  "jitney"  owners  and  street  railroads.  The 
point  that  impressed  those  who  for  the  first  time  had  op- 
portunity to  hear  both  sides,  was  that  a  new  era  in 
street-car    transportation    had    opened,    an    era    as    im- 


The  "Jitney1'  Bus  Issue  59 

portant  as  that  which  marked  the  change  from  horse- 
cars  to  cables,  and  later,  the  change  from  cables  to 
trolleys. 

The  street-railroad  people  had  contended  that  after 
the  street  railroads  were  driven  out,  the  "jitneys"  would 
be  unable  to  accommodate  the  traffic. 

Kehoe  asked  one  of  the  "jitney"  bus  representa- 
tives the  answer  to  this. 

"I  feel  sorry  for  the  car  people,"  came  the  instant 
reply.  "They  apparently  fail  to  appreciate  that  the 
sudden  popularity  of  the  auto-bus  marks  an  important 
turning  point  in  street  transportation.  The  buses  now 
used  will,  of  course,  soon  pass.  They  are  employed 
only  to  meet  an  emergency.  They  are  not  adapted  to 
the  work.  In  ten  months  practically  all  the  buses  now 
used   as   'jitneys'   will   be   on   the    scrap   heap. 

"But  auto  manufacturers  recognize  the  new  de- 
mand. Even  now  they  are  considering  plans  for  an 
auto-bus  adapted  to  street  transportation.  Within  six 
months  practical  cars,  carrying  from  ten  to  fifteen  pas- 
sengers, will  be  employed.  Their  coming  will  mark  the 
passing  of  the  present  track  system  of  street  transpor- 
tation." 

All,  including  apparently  the  street-car  men  them- 
selves,  felt  the   force  of  the   statement. 

To  meet  the  "jitney"  situation,  two  bills  were  in- 
troduced. The  first  of  these  (Senate  Bill  814,  Cogswell) 
was  a  skeleton  measure,  providing  for  a  tax  on  "jit- 
neys," but  leaving  the  rates  to  be  charged  blank  to  be 
filled    in    later. 

The  second  (Assembly  Bill  1530,  Conard)  was  a 
regulatory  measure. 


60  The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue 

The  Cogswell  bill  was  introduced  in  January,  but 
it  was  not  given  definite  form  until  April  22,  when  it 
was  whipped  into  shape  by  amendment.  The  most 
important  of  the  amendments  adopted  put  a  State  tax 
upon  "jitney"  buses  of  $12.50  a  year  for  each  seat 
exclusive  of  that  used  by  the  driver.  This  meant 
a  tax  of  $50  a  year  on  the  smallest  of  the  cars  used, 
and  $12.50  more  for  each  additional  seat  of  the  larger 
cars.  The  most  suggestive  of  the  amendments  con- 
fined the  terms  of  the  bill  to  "jitney"  buses.  The  orig- 
inal bill  included  all  vehicles  propelled  by  any  power 
other  than  muscular  and  not  confined  in  their  opera- 
tion to  a  fixed  track.  This  meant  "taxis,"  sight- 
seeing cars,  and  the  like.  But  as  "taxis"  and  sight- 
seeing cars  do  not  compete  with  street-car  lines,  the 
railroad  lobby  was  willing  that  they  should  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  terms  of  the  bill. 

The  "jitney"  bus  people  sent  H.  W.  MacMeans  and 
W.  R.  Covington  to  Sacramento  to  represent  them. 

Instead  of  opposing  the  bill  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  a  bad  bill,  MacMeans  and  Covington  undertook 
to  compromise  with  the  railroad  representatives.  The 
"jitney"  people  wanted  all  motor  vehicles  taxed  on 
the  same  basis  as  "jitneys."  The  railroad  people 
graciously  conceded  this  point.  So  the  bill  was  again 
amended  to  include  "any  automobile  or  motor  bus 
engaged  in  the  business  of  carrying  passengers  for 
hire."  This  most  sweeping  provision  included  even 
funeral  buses.  The  bill  was  further  amended  to  reduce 
the  tax  per  seat  from  $12.50  a  seat  to  $7. 

In  this  compromise  form  the  measure  passed  both 
Houses.      In    the    Senate,   not   a    vote   was   cast   against 


The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue  61 

it.52      In    the    Assembly    it    was    passed    by    a    vote    of 
41    to    16.53 

And  after  Governor  Johnson  had  heard  the  argu- 
ments for  and  against  the  "jitney"  bus  tax  bill,  had 
listened  to  the  story  of  the  measure's  numerous  amend- 
ments, and  been  told  of  the  conferences  between  the 
railroad  lobbyists  and  the  "jitney"  lobbyists,  he  vetoed 
it.54 


">2  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Bill  814  passed  the  Senate  was: 
For  the  bill — Senators  Anderson,  Ballard,  Beban,  Benedict, 
Benson,  Birdsall,  Breed,  Butler,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Cohn, 
Crowley,  Duncan,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Jones,  Kehoe,  King, 
Luce,  Maddux,  Mott,  Rush,  Scott,  Shearer,  Slater,  Strobridge, 
Stuckenbruck,  Tyrrell,  and  Wolfe— 31. 
Against   the   bill — None. 

53  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Bill  814  passed  the  Assembly 
was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Bartlett,  Boyce,  Browne,  M.  B. ; 
Cary,  Chamberlin,  Conard,  Edwards,  L. ;  Edwards,  R.  G.;  Ellis, 
Fish,  Gebhart,  Godsil,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Hayes,  J.  J.;  John- 
son, Judson,  Kerr,  Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter,  Lyon,  McDonald,  W. 
A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Phelps,  Phillips,  Ryan, 
Satterwhite,  Schmitt,  Scott,  F.  C. ;  Sharkey,  Shartel,  Sisson, 
Tabler,  Widenmann,  Wills,   Wright,  H.   W.,  and  Wright,   T.  M. — 41. 

Against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Ashley,  Beck,  Brown. 
H.  W. ;  Burke,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Downing,  Ferguson,  Gelder, 
Harris,  Manning,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  Rigdon,  Scott,  L.  D.,  and 
Spengler — 16. 

Burke  entered  a  statement  in  the  Journal  that  he  had  voted 
for  this  bill,  and  that  the  record  showing  him  to  have  voted 
against    it    was    erroneous. 

54  At  the  hearing  before  the  Governor  were  John  A.  Britton 
of  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company;  Sam  Haskins,  Los 
Angeles  Electric;  Paul  Shoup,  Pacific  Electric;  G.  K.  Weeks, 
Key  Route;  M.  V.  Hill,  Southern  California  lines;  James  M. 
Oliver,  Southern  Pacific;  Charles  N.  Black,  United  Railroads. 
These  all  urged  Governor  Johnson  to  sign  the  bill.  The  most 
convincing  argument  was,  however,  made  by  a  woman,  the  wife 
of  a  "jitney"  bus  owner,  a  Mrs.  C.  A.  Gray  of  Sacramento.  She 
spoke    against   the   bill: 

"Governor,"  she  began,  "we  are  before  you,  asking  for  the 
right  to  live.  We  want  the  right  to  earn  our  bread.  Your 
action    on    these    bills    means    our    livelihood. 

"My  husband  runs  a  'jitney.'  He  brings  home  from  $3.50 
to  $7  a  day.  To  earn  this  money — and  out  of  it  must  come  the 
expense  of  operating — he  works  from  twelve  to  sixteen  hours 
a  day. 

"We  have  averaged  since  operating  our  jitney  just  $4.00 
a  day.     That  is   barely  a  living. 

"Who  wants  this  taxation?  The  public  does  not  want  it.  I 
do    not    see    representatives    of    The    People    here    asking    you    to 


62  The  "Jitney11  Bus  Issue 

The  Conard  bill  to  regulate  "jitney"  buses  was  in- 
troduced during  the  second  part  of  the  session. 

The  measure  provided  that  before  any  person  could 
operate  a  "jitney"  bus  he  must  obtain  a  franchise  on 
much  the  same  basis  as  he  would  get  a  franchise  to 
operate  a  street  railroad.  The  act  provided  further 
that  at  the  time  of  opening  bids  for  such  franchise 
"any  responsible  person  or  corporation,  present  or  rep- 
resented, may  bid  for  said  franchise  or  privilege  a 
sum  not  less  than  10  per  cent,  above  the  highest  sealed 
responsible  bidder ;  and  said  bidder  may  be  raised  not 
less  than  10  per  cent,  by  any  other  responsible  bidder, 
and  said  bidding  may  be  so  continued  until  finally  said 
franchise  shall  be  struck  off,  sold  and  awarded  .  .  . 
to  the  highest  bidder." 

Under  that  section  it  was  not  at  all  difficult  to  see 
that  no  man  of  moderate  means  would  be  able  to 
secure   a   "franchise"   to  operate  a   "jitney"  bus. 

The  measure  went  to  the  Assembly  Committee  on 
Public  Utilities.  And  there  it  stayed  for  nearly  a 
month,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  corporation  lob- 
byists. The  committee  finally  shifted  its  responsibility, 
by   referring  the  measure   to  the   State  Railroad   Corn- 


sign  these  bills.  All  those  who  are  for  the  bills  represent  the 
powerful    railroads. 

"The  fact  is,  the  public  wants  the  'jitneys'  to  run.  When 
they  do  not,  then  the  'jitneys'  will  stop  running.  We  want  a 
chance  to  make  a  living,  and  ask  you  that  you  refuse  to  kill 
us   off. 

"Is  there  any  one  here  from  The  People?  If  there  be,  I'd 
like    to    have    him    stand    up. 

"The  'jitney'  men  are  afraid  to  come-  here.  We  sent  out 
a  call  for  them  to  come,  and,  as  you  see,  Governor,  my  husband 
and  myself  are  the  only  ones  who  came  from  this  city.  They 
are   afraid    to    come." 


The  "Jitney,,  Bus  Issue  63 

mission  for  an  opinion.  The  Commission  replied  that 55 
the  local  authorities  ought  to  have  the  power  to  con- 
trol the  "jitney"   bus  business. 

The  proponents  of  the  bill  urged  that  the  Com- 
mission had  endorsed  it.  This  may  well  be  questioned. 
However,  the  committee  finally  reported  the  bill  back 
to  the  Assembly  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be 
passed. 

On  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  the  measure  met  with 
spirited  opposition.  But  it  soon  developed  that  its 
supporters  had  enough  votes  to  put  it  through.  The 
roll-call  showed  forty-three  for  the  bill  and  twenty-six 
against.56      Assemblyman    Downing    changed    his    vote 


55  The  Railroad  Commission's  letter  was  addressed  to  W.  A. 
Avey,  chairman  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Utilities, 
and   read   as    follows: 

"We  desire  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  letter  dated  the  14th 
inst.,  signed  by  yourself  and  other  members  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Utilities  of  the  Assembly  and  approved  by  Mr.  Grant 
Conard,  author  of  the  bill,  asking-  this  Commission's  considera- 
tion and  advice  as  to  what  action  your  Committee  should  take 
with    reference    to    Assembly    Bill    No.    1530. 

"This  is  a  bill  to  provide  for  the  grant  of  franchises  by  local 
authorities  to  persons,  firms  or  corporations  operating  motor 
vehicles  or  automobiles  carrying-  passengers  for  hire  upon  the 
public  streets  or  highways  of  any  county,  city  and  county, 
city  or  town  in  this  State.  We  assume  the  bill  has  for  its 
object  the  grant  of  power  to  the  local  authorities  to  regulate 
and  supervise,  through  the  franchise  power,  the  operations  of 
the    so-called    'jitney'    buses. 

"We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  local  authorities  ought  to 
have  the  power,  in  the  interest  of  the  general  public,  to  control 
the  'jitney'  bus  business  and  know  of  no  better  way  to  accom- 
plish this  result  than  by  giving  to  the  local  authorities  the 
power  to  grant  franchises  with  such  conditions  as  may  seem 
proper,    without    which    franchises    'jitney'    buses    cannot   operate. 

"We  assume  that  if  any  objections  exist  as  to  the  details  of 
this  bill,  as  distinguished  from  its  general  purpose,  such  objec- 
tions will  be  drawn  to  the  attention  of  your  Committee  by  the 
'jitney'  bus  proprietors,  if  a  public  hearing  is  held.  Without 
passing  upon  the  details  of  the  bill,  we  desire  to  express  to  you 
our  view  that  the  general  purpose  of  the  bill  is  commendable 
and  that  the  local  authorities  ought  to  have  the  general  powers 
which    the    bill    undertakes    to    confer." 

56  The  vote  by  which  the  Jitney-bus  Regulation  bill  passed 
the   Assembly   was    as    follows: 

For    the    bill — Avey,     Bartlett,     Beck,     Benton,     Boyce,     Browne, 


64  The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue 

from  no  to  aye,  and  held  the  measure  up  under  a 
motion   to   reconsider. 

When  the  bill  came  up  the  next  day  on  Downing's 
motion  to  reconsider,57  it  was  sent  back  to  the  Public 
Utilities  Committee.  The  committee  finally  decided 
upon  amendments,  the  most  important  of  which  elim- 
inated the  provision  for  bidding  up  on  franchises  after 
the  bids  had  been  opened.  The  bill  was  then  sent  back 
to    the   Assembly. 

On  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  an  attempt  was  made 
to  amend  the  measure  so  that  a  license  should  be 
required  for  operating  "jitney"  buses  instead  of  a 
franchise.  But  this  was  voted  down.  The  Assembly 
by  a  vote  of  41  to  33  58  then  passed  the  bill  for  the 
second  time. 


M.  B.;  Bruck,  Burke,  Cary,  Chamberlin,  Chenoweth,  Conard, 
Dennett,  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Fish,  Gebhart,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ; 
Johnson,  Judson,  Kerr,  Long,  Lyon,  Manning,  McCray,  McKnight, 
McPherson,  Meek,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Quinn,  Ream, 
Rodgers,  Rominger,  Schmitt,  Scott,  C.  E.;  Sisson,  Tabler,  Widen- 
mann,   Wright,   H.  W. ;   Wright,   T.  M.,   and  Young — 43. 

Against  the  bill — Anderson,  Boude,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Byrnes, 
Canepa,  Collins,  Downing,  Ellis,  Ferguson,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris, 
Hayes,  J.  J.;  Kennedy,  Kramer,  Lostutter,  McDonald,  J.  J.; 
McDonald,  W.  A.;  Mouser,  Phelps,  Rigdon,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Scott, 
L.    D. ;    Sharkey,    and    Spengler — 26. 

r>7  The  vote  for  reconsideration  of  the  "jitney"  bus  bill  was: 
For  reconsideration — Anderson,  Ashley,  Avey,  Bartlett,  Beck, 
Boude,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Bruck,  Byrnes, 
Canepa,  Collins,  Downing,  Ellis,  Ferguson,  Gebhart.  Gelder,  Godsil, 
Harris,  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Kennedy,  Kramer,  Long,  Manning,  McDon- 
ald, J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  Meek,  Mouser,  Pettis,  Phelps.  Quinn, 
Rigdon,  Ryan,  Scott,  F.  C;  Scott,  L.  D. ;  Sharkey,  Shartel,  Sisson, 
Spengler,   Widenmann,   Wills,   Wishard,    and   Young — 43. 

Against  reconsideration — Anerich,  Benton,  Burke,  Cary,  Cham- 
berlin, Conard,  Dennett,  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Fish,  Hawson,  Hayes, 
D.  R. ;  Kerr,  McPherson,  Phillips,  Rodgers,  Rominger,  Schmitt, 
Wright,   H.   W.,   and  Wright,    T.   M.— 19. 

58  The  vote  by  which  the  "jitney"  bus  bill  passed  the  Assem- 
bly  for   the  second    time  was: 

For  the  bill — Arnerich,  Bartlett,  Beck,  Benton.  Boyce,  Bruck, 
Burke,  Cary,  Chamberlin,  Conard,  Dennett,  Edwards,  L. ;  Edwards, 
R.  G. ;  Encell,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Johnson, 
Judson,   Kerr,   Long,   Lyon,   Manning,  McKnight,   McPherson,   Meek, 


The  "Jitney"  Bus  Issue  65 

In  the  rush  of  the  closing  days  of  the  session,  the 
bill  went  through  the  Senate  without  a  vote  against  it. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  "Jitney"  Tax  bill  (Senate 
bill  814),  Governor  Johnson  refused  to  sign  this  meas- 
ure, and  it  did  not  become  a  law. 


Mouser,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Rodgers,  Rominger,  Ryan, 
Schmitt,  Scott,  C.  E. ;  Shartel,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright, 
T.   M.,   and  Young — 41. 

Against  the  bill — Anderson,  Ashley,  Boude,  Brown,  Henry 
Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Byrnes,  Collins,  Downing,  Ellis,  Ferguson, 
Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris,  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Kennedy,  Kramer,  Lostutter, 
McCray,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  Phelps,  Quinn,  Rig- 
don,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite.  Scott,  F.  C;  Scott,  L.  D.;  Sharkey, 
Sisson,    Spengler,    Tabler,    Widenmann,    and    Wills — 33. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
The   Grant-Wolfe  Recall   Contest. 

The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  contest,  which  attracted 
attention  not  only  throughout  the  State  but  in  all 
parts  of  the  country  where  the  test  of  the  Recall  in 
California  was  under  observation,  came  up  in  the 
Senate  during  the  first  part  of  the  session.59 

This  contest  had  resulted  from  a  movement  started 
against  State  Senator  E.  E.  Grant  soon  after  the  1913 
Legislature  had  adjourned. 

Grant  had  been  elected  from  the  Nineteenth  Sen- 
atorial District  at  San  Francisco.  He  had  at  the  1912 
election   defeated   State   Senator   "Eddie"    Wolfe. 

Wolfe  had  for  many  years  been  a  leader  of  the 
so-called  "organization"  or  "machine"  group  in  the 
Senate.60  His  effective  opposition  to  Anti-Race  Track 
Gambling  legislation  had,  in  particular,  given  him  a 
reputation  throughout  the  State. 

As  early  as  1908,  the  California  Anti-Race  Track 
League,  organized  to  combat  the  gambling  evils  at 
the  tracks,  opposed  Wolfe's  re-election  because  of  his 

89  For  the  California  plan  of  a  divided  session,  see  the  "Story 
of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913,"  Chapter  VII. 

60  For  Wolfe's  record  in  the  State  Senate  see  Journals  of 
the  California  State  Senate,  Sessions  1897-1911  inclusive;  and 
Stories  of  the  California  Legislature  1909  and  1911.  For  his  record 
on  direct  primary  legislation  see  files  San  Francisco  Call,  Feb- 
ruary, 1909;  on  Railroad  Regulation,  "Story  of  the  California 
Legislature  1909,"  Chapters  XII,  XIII,  XIV;  on  Racetrack  Gam- 
bling, Chapters  VI,  VII,  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  1909," 
and    Chapter   XIV,    "Story   of    the   California    Legislature    of   1911." 


The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest        67 

record  on  the  1907  anti-gambling  measure.  But  the 
campaign  against  Wolfe  that  year  failed.  He  was 
re-elected.  He  was,  however,  four  years  later  de- 
feated by   Mr.   Grant. 

In  the  Senate  of  1913,  Grant  took  an  aggressive 
stand  against  vice  conditions.  His  most  notable  work 
was  the  introduction  and  effective  support  of  the  so- 
called  Redlight   Abatement  act.61 

This  measure  provides  the  machinery  by  which  the 
citizen  may  proceed  against  the  owner  of  a  house  of 
prostitution,  and  close  the  building  as  a  nuisance. 

While  the  bill  was  pending,  Grant  was  warned 
that  its  passage  would  array  against  him  elements  that 
would  eventually  ruin  him  politically.  One  of  his 
stanchest  supporters  in  the  1912  campaign  told  him 
he  must  accept  amendments  to  the  Abatement  act 
which  would  render  the  measure  ineffective.  This, 
Grant  refused  to  do.  The  bill,  with  Grant's  active 
support,  passed  both  Houses ;  went  to  the  Governor ; 
was  signed  by  him,  and,  after  being  held  up  for  nearly 
two  years  by  means  of  a  referendum  petition  con- 
taining hundreds  of  forged  signatures,62  was  finally 
ratified  by  The  People  at  the  polls. 

The  1913  Legislature  adjourned  on  May  12.  With- 
in two  weeks,  the  subject  of  Grant's  recall  was  being 
discussed  in  the  newspapers.  Few  took  the  movement 
seriously.     To  recall  a  member  of  the  Legislature   for 

gi  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913,"  pages  320- 
344,    inclusive. 

62  Theodore  Kytka,  the  handwriting  expert,  who  examined 
the  Referendum  petition  under  which  this  bill  was  held  up, 
states  that  had  all  the  forged  signatures  been  eliminated,  not 
enough  valid  signatures  would  have  remained  on  the  petition  to 
invoke    the    Referendum    against    the    act. 


68        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

having  opposed  vice  conditions  did  not  seem  possible 
of  accomplishment  even  in  San  Francisco.  Publica- 
tions opposed  to  vice  interests  expressed  conviction  that 
no  Recall  petition  would  ever  be  circulated  against 
Grant,  but  that  if  such  a  Recall  were  attempted,  the 
reflection  would  be  upon  San  Francisco  and  not  upon 
Grant.63 

This  position  was  taken  not  only  by  publications 
which  were  advocating  the  policies  for  which  Grant 
had  contended,  and  which  had  supported  his  candi- 
dacy, but  by  the  San  Francisco  Morning  Call,  which, 
at  the  1912  election,  had  been  the  principal  newspaper 
to  support  Wolfe  in  opposition  to  Grant. 

"Every  few  weeks,"  said  the  Call  in  its  issue  of 
August  21,  1913,  "the  public  is  informed  that  the 
movement  for  the  recall  of  State'  Senator  Grant  has 
been  revived  and  is  to  be  prosecuted  with  vigor.  It 
were  better  for  San  Francisco  if  there  were  no  more 
such  announcements — if   the   proposed  recall   of  Grant 

63  "It  Is  rumored,"  said  the  California  Issue  for  June  1913, 
"that  the  pro-liquor  forces  and  the  friends  of  commercialized  vice 
are  circulating-  petitions  in  San  Francisco  for  the  recall  of  Senator 
Grant,  who  introduced  the  Redlight  Injunction  and  Abatement 
bill  in  the  Senate.  We  can  hardly  believe  that  they  will  commit 
such  folly.  So  far  as  the  Senator,  himself,  is  concerned,  nothing: 
better  could  happen.  If  the  effort  to  recall  him  were  successful 
he  would  be  hailed  the  Nation  over — yes,  over  much  of  the 
civilized  world — as  a  martyr  to  San  Francisco's  shame.  If  the 
effort  failed,  Senator  Grant  would  have  gotten  some  very  de- 
sirable advertising,  and  would  go  back  to  the  Senate  with  added 
prestige. 

"But  what  about  San  Francisco's  reputation?  The  very  effort 
to  recall  a  representative  because  he  stood  for  decency  would 
blacken  the  city's  name  as  nothing  else  has  ever  done.  That 
any  body  of  citizens  should  commit  such  folly  just  now,  when 
all  eyes  are  upon  our  city,  and  when  we  are  inviting  the  world 
to  be  our  guests,  hardly  seems  possible.  Not  until  we  see  a 
copy  of  the  petition  will  we  be  convinced  that  it  is  in  circulation 
and,  not  until  the  signed  petition  is  filed  with  the  proper  official, 
will  we  believe  that  any  large  number  of  our  citizens  are  so 
wanting  in   both   common   sense  and   common   decency." 


The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest        69 

could  be  forgotten.  It  is  admitted  that  the  moving 
cause  of  the  proposed  recall  of  Grant  is  to  be  found 
in  his  activities  in  connection  with  the  enactment  of 
the  so-called  Redlight  Abatement  act." 

The  Call,  after  alleging  that  "The  election  of 
Grant  has  reflected  small  credit  upon  San  Francisco," 
and  that  "his  recall  would  reflect  even  less,"  stated  that : 

"It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  decent  man  could  be 
induced  to  accept  a  Recall  nomination  in  opposition 
to  Grant.  Almost  every  decent  man  has  a  wife  or  a 
mother,  a  sister  or  children.  The  man  who  opposes 
Grant  cannot  escape  the  charge  that  he  is  the  candi- 
date of  the  vice  masters,  the  prostitutes  and  the  dive 
keepers.  The  man  who  cares  for  his  good  name,  for 
the  happiness  of  his  family,  will  be  slow  to  accept  the 
consequences  of  such  a  candidacy." 

Nevertheless,  a  petition  for  Senator  Grant's  recall 
was  duly  circulated.  The  expressed  objections  to 
Grant's  course  in  the  Legislature,  as  given  publicity 
in  the  newspapers,  were  that  he  had  actively  advo- 
cated the  passage  of  the  Redlight  Abatement  meas- 
ure ;  that  he  had  voted  for  Prohibition,  and  wanted 
to  make  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  "dry" ;  that 
he  had  refused  to  work  on  Sunday  with  his  colleagues 
in  concluding  the  work  of  the  Legislature.64  Senator 
Tom  Finn  of  San  Francisco,  in  a  statement  made 
before  the  Senate,  March  10,  1915,  gave  another  rea- 
son   for    Grant's   recall.      Finn   stated   that    Grant   was 


64  These  objections  to  Senator  Grant's  course  as  a  legislator 
will  be  found  set  forth  in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  for  Sep- 
tember 11,  1913,  under  the  heading,  "Petitions  to  Recall  Grant 
are   Burned." 


70        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

opposed  to  boxing  (Grant  had  supported  the  Anti-Prize 
Fight  bill),  and  that  that  was  the  cause  of  the  cam- 
paign against  him. 

But  the  recall  petition  circulated  against  Grant 
made  no  reference  to  the  Redlight  Abatement  bill, 
nor  to  his  refusal  to  work  on  Sunday,  nor  to  the 
Anti-Prize  Fight  bill.  There  were  three  reasons  given 
for  his  recall.     They  were  : 65 

(1)  That  at  the  1913  session  he  had  voted  for 
Senate  bill  384.  This  measure,  had  it  been  enacted, 
would  have  prevented  the  sale,  giving  away,  etc.,  of 
intoxicating   liquors   at   the   Panama-Pacific   Exposition, 

65  The  Recall  petition  against  Senator  Grant  was  in  full  as 
follows : 

"We,  the  undersigned,  Electors  of  the  Nineteenth  Senatorial 
District  in  said  State  of  California,  qualified  to  vote  at  the 
recall  election  hereinafter  mentioned,  demand  an  election  of  a 
successor  to  Edwin  E.  Grant,  as  a  member  of  the  Senate  of  the 
State  of  California  from  said  Nineteenth  Senatorial  District  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  XXIII  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the    State  of  California,   and   the  laws  of  said  State. 

"The  removal  of  Edwin  E.  Grant  from  said  office  is  sought 
by   us    on    the   ground,    to-wit: 

"That  as  a  member  of  the  California  Legislature  since  Jan- 
uary 6th,  1913,  he  has  voted  against  the  wishes  of  his  constit- 
uents. That  on  April  17th,  1913,  he  voted  for  Senate  Bill  384, 
known  as  the  "dry  fair  bill,"  which,  if  passed,  would  prevent  the 
sale  of  all  liquors,  including  our  famous  native  wines,  excepting 
that  wines  or  liquors  could  be  served  with  bona  fide  meals  in 
restaurants  and  cafes  of  one  hundred  chairs  and  hotels  of  two 
hundred  rooms,  which  would  discriminate  against  the  small 
restaurant,  cafe  and  hotel  man.  Had  such  bill  passed  we  be- 
lieve it  would  have  caused  our  World's  Fair  a  financial  failure. 
As  stated  by  President  C.  C.  Moore,  of  the  Fair,  no  doubt  it 
would  cause  the  withdrawal  of  a  number  of  foreign  exhibits 
and    concessions. 

"That  on  April  14th,  1913,  he  voted  against  Senate  Bill  No. 
534.  This  bill  provides  that  no  marriage  could  be  solemnized 
until  at  least  five  days  after  issuance  of  license  unless  in  an 
extraordinary  or  emergency  case.  When  death  is  imminent,  a 
certificate  signed  by  a  judge  or  physician  will  allow  an  immedi- 
ate marriage.  Said  bill,  if  passed,  would  stop  elopements,  hasty 
and    secret    marriages    and    elevate    the    standard    of    society. 

"That  on  April  9th,  1913,  he  voted  against  Senate  Bill  No. 
1007.  This  bill  provided  that  school  books  compiled,  printed  and 
published  in  California,  when  equally  as  good  and  at  the  same  or 
less  cost,  shall  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  This  bill 
is  in  the  interest  of  Home  Industry.  Senator  Grant  should  have 
voted    for   this    bill." 


The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest        71 

or  within  150  feet  of  its  grounds,  except  in  hotels  of 
200  rooms  or  more,  and  in  restaurants  with  accommo- 
dations for  100  or  more  guests.  Nor  did  the  measure 
prevent  the  giving  away  of  samples  of  liquors  at  the 
several  exhibits,  provided  such  samples  were  not  to 
be  drunk  upon  the  premises  where  they  were  given. 
The  aim  of  the  measure,  and  about  all  that  would 
have  been  accomplished  under  it,  was  to  keep  saloons 
out  of  the  Exposition  grounds,  and  150  feet  away  from 
its    boundaries. 

(2)  That  he  had  voted  against  Senate  Bill  534 
which  provided,  with  certain  exceptions,  that  no  mar- 
riage should  be  solemnized  until  at  least  five  days 
after  issuance  of  the  license. 

(3)  That  he  had  voted  against  Senate  Bill  1007. 
This  measure  gave  California  authors  and  publishers 
preference  over  authors  and  publishers  of  other  States 
in  the  preparation  and  publication  of  school  books. 

Such  were  the  reasons  advanced  for  the  removal  of 
Senator  Grant  from  office.  The  press  of  the  State 
denounced  them  as  subterfuges. 

"The  constituents  of  Senator  Grant,"  said  the 
Fresno  Republican,  "who  are  starting  this  recall  peti- 
tion, do  not  know  nor  care  whether  the  schoolbook 
bill  and  the  marriage  bill  were  good  or  bad,  and  they 
do  not  regard  a  difference  of  opinion,  if  they  had  one, 
on  these  bills  as  important  enough  to  justify  a  recall 
petition.  They  do  think  that  Senator  Grant  has  cer- 
tain constituents  who  would  object  to  his  voting  for 
any  temperance  measure,  and  they  frankly  avow  this 
objection,   which   is,   from   their  viewpoint,   a   real   one. 


72        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

But  their  actual  objection  is  that  Senator  Grant  intro- 
duced in  the  Senate  the  Redlight  Abatement  act,  and 
that  he  voted  in  general  on  the  side  of  decency  and 
morality  in  the  Legislature.  They  do  not  dare  openly 
avow  this  objection,  but  if  the  petition  should  be 
signed  by  sufficient  numbers  to  produce  a  recall  elec- 
tion this  would  be  the  argument  privately  made." 

"A  recall  petition,"  concluded  the  Republican, 
"against  such  a  man  on  such  grounds  is  an  insult  to 
his  constituents,  since  it  charges  them  with  being  per- 
sons who  regard  aggressive  decency  as  a  disqualifica- 
tion for  office,  and  it  is  an  offense  to  the  State  of 
California,  which  has  been  tried  to  the  limit  of  en- 
durance to  be  patient  with  San  Francisco's  imposition 
of  legislative  delegations  on  it,  and  whose  impatience 
might  pass  that  limit  if  a  San  Francisco  constituency 
should  recall  a  Senator  on  the  mere  ground  that  he 
was  too  decent  for  them." 

Later  on,  as  those  seeking  Grant's  recall  became 
more  active,  the  Republican  denounced  the  movement 
as  "the  most  cynical  insult  to  the  moral  standards  of 
the  people  of  San  Francisco  which  has  appeared  in  the 
course   of   recent   politics." 

Those  publications  which  had  opposed  the  Recall 
when  it  was  before  the  Legislature,  and  later,  when  it 
was  before  the  electors  at  State-wide  election,  cited 
the  movement  against  Grant  as  justifying  their  oppo- 
sition. 

"The  petition,"  said  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle, 
"does  not  allege  Senator  Grant  to  have  been  guilty  of 
any  violation  of  the  moral,  penal,  civil  or  political  code. 


The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest        73 

It  is  asked  that  he  be  fired  because  he  voted  'against 
the  wishes  of  his  constituents'  on  the  'dry  fair  bill,' 
the  five-day  marriage  bill  and  some  schoolbook  bill. 

"As  there  were  in  the  neighborhood  of  4000  bills 
before  the  freak  Legislature,  of  which,  say,  2000  prob- 
ably came  to  a  vote  in  the  Senate,  it  may  be  assumed 
that  Senator  Grant  voted  in  accordance  with  'the  wishes 
of  his  constituents'  on  1997  bills  more  or  less,  but 
should  be  recalled  because  he  guessed  wrong  three 
times.     .     .     . 

"The  Chronicle  submits  that  a  law  under  which 
such  a  performance  is  possible  is  an  atrocity."  66 

But  in  spite  of  the  general  denouncement  of  the 
recall  movement  against  Senator  Grant,  the  circula- 
tion of  petitions  against  him  continued.  In  Grant's 
district  2334  signatures  were  required  to  invoke  the 
Recall.  Early  in  September,  Grant's  opponents  claimed 
to  have  over  3000  signatures. 

But  about  that  time  the  forgeries  of  the  Redlight 
Abatement  and  other  Referendum  petitions  were  ex- 
posed.    For  a  period  a  number  of  prominent  charac- 


66  The  San  Bernardino  Sun  took  the  same  position  as  did 
The   Chronicle.     Said   the   Sun: 

"Every  development  that  comes  to  the  surface  justifies  The 
Sun's  platform  plank  to  the  effect  that  the  recall  is  a  worth- 
less political  device,  because  it  is  misused  five  times  for  once 
that  it  is  used  properly.  Anything  that  does  more  harm  than 
good  is  condemned  out  of  hand  and  by  the  common  judgment  of 
men.  A  recall  has  now  been  launched  against  the  San  Fran- 
cisco State  Senator  who  stood  sponsor  for  the  'Redlight  Abate- 
ment' measure,  and  because  he  sponsored  it.  The  children 
of  this  world  are  in  their  generation  wiser  than  the  children  of 
light,  and  they  know  how  to  use  the  recall  four  times  and  make 
it  work,  where  it  is  used  once  for  a  decent  cause  or  an  honest 
purpose.  We  do  not  know  Senator  Grant,  but  if  the  worst  thing 
in  his  record  is  his  championship  of  the  measure  that  makes  the 
property  owner  responsible  for  the  blood  money  he  collects,  to 
apply  the  recall  to  the  Senator  damns  that  particular  political 
invention  to  a  hell  as  deep  as  that  reserved  for  the  procurer  of 
smug  wealth   that  knowingly  shares   the   spoils." 


74        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

ters  of  the  San  Francisco  underworld  seemed  headed 
for  the  penitentiary.67  And  the  Grant  Recall  petition 
was  mysteriously  burned. 

A  second  Recall  petition  was  then  circulated 
against  Grant.  This  petition  was  finally  filed  with  the 
San  Francisco  officials.  It  was  found  to  contain  many 
forged  and  irregular  signatures.  So  patent  were  the 
forgeries,  that  the  San  Francisco  Grand  Jury  was  pre- 
vailed upon  to  take  action.  Indictments  were  voted 
against  two  of  those  alleged  to  be  guilty  of  frauds 
in  connection  with  the  circulation  of  this  second 
petition.  The  necessary  documents  for  indictment  were 
drawn  up  in  the  office  of  the  District  Attorney.  But 
the  indictments  were  never  brought.  Something — one 
of  those  mysterious  occurrences  of  San  Francisco 
underworld  politics — had  occurred.  Nor  has  there 
been  any  effective  effort  on  the  part  of  San  Francisco 
authorities,  nor  by  the  State  Attorney  General's  office, 
to  bring  those  responsible  for  the  frauds  in  connection 
with  the  second  recall  petition  against  Grant  to  ac- 
count.68 


67  Of  these  forged  Referendum  petitions  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle  said:  "There  is  a  disposition  upon  the  part  of  the 
District  Attorney  and  the  police  not  to  prosecute  the  small-fry 
forgers  who  have  confessed  their  complicity  in  the  plot,  but  to 
use  them  as  witnesses  against  the  men  who  financed  and  man- 
aged the  petition-signing  campaign.  It  is  believed  that  there  is 
not  a  single  one  of  the  more  than  forty  separate  petitions  that 
were  circulated  in  San  Francisco  which  does  not  fairly  reek  with 
forgeries. 

"Many  of  these  forgeries,  it  is  said,  were  committed  by  the 
men  who  circulated  the  petitions,  their  purpose  being  to  in- 
crease their  pay,  their  remuneration  being  based  upon  the 
number    of    signatures    which    they    secured    to    the    petitions. 

"But  the  real  forgery  plot  was  conceived  and  executed  in  the 
offices  of  the  association  which  was  fighting  the  Redlight 
Abatement  law,  and  in  the  execution  of  the  plot  several  men 
innocently  circulating  the  petitions  deliberately  were  made  the 
scapegoats    of    the    criminal    conspiracy." 

68  The  San  Francisco  Bulletin  (issue  of  July  10,  1914)  states 
that  of  a  total  of  2,700  names  on  this  second  petition  1,400  were 
forged    or    otherwise    disqualified    names. 


The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest        75 

A  third  recall  petition  against  Grant  was  then  cir- 
culated. This  third  petition  was  eventually  filed  with 
the  San  Francisco  authorities.  The  Registrar  of  vo- 
ters at  San  Francisco  rejected  more  than  1000  of  the 
signatures,  but  certified  that  2592  were  valid.  This 
was  258  more  valid  signatures  than  the  2334  required 
to  invoke  the  Recall. 

Grant,  after  examining  the  petition,  was  convinced 
that  a  number  of  names  which  had  been  certified  as 
valid  were  irregularly  if  not  fraudulently  signed. 
The  Registrar  at  San  Francisco  had  twenty  days  from 
the  filing  of  the  petition  before  he  was  required  to 
certify  to  its  sufficiency  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
Senator  Grant,  through  his  attorney,  Mr.  Milton  T. 
U'Ren,69  asked  of  the  Registrar  that  he  take  the  full 

69  After  making  his  arrangements  with  Registrar  Zemansky 
over  the   telephone,    Mr.    U'Ren   wrote   the   Registrar   as   follows: 

"Mr.   J.    H.  Zemansky,  "July    29,     1914. 

"Old  City  Hall, 

"San   Francisco,    Cal. 
"Dear   Sir: 

"This  is  to  confirm  my  conversation  over  the  telephone 
yesterday. 

"I  have  been  retained  by  Senator  Edwin  E.  Grant  as  his 
legal  representative  in  the  matter  of  the  recall  petition  now 
pending  against  him.  We  have  information  to  the  effect  that 
many  of  the  signatures  to  the  recall  petition  are  not  genuine 
and  that  many  others  were  obtained  under  false  pretenses. 
Senator  Grant  has  instructed  me  to  make  a  thorough  investi- 
gation of  this  petition  and  if  it  is  found  that  the  law  has  been 
violated  in  any  respect,  we  propose  to  vigorously  prosecute  the 
guilty   parties. 

"My  understanding  is  that  you  will  take  the  full  20  days 
within  which  to  verify  the  petition.  If  this  be  done,  it  will 
give  me  an  opportunity  to  investigate  and  check  up  the  signa- 
tures. I  further  understand  that  you  will  notify  me  when  you 
have  completed  the  work. 
"U'R:ET  "Yours,    truly,    Milton    T.   U'Ren." 

Zemansky's  reply  was:  "July  30,    1914. 

"Mr.    Milton    T.    U'Ren, 

"Mills    Building, 
"San    Francisco. 
"My  Dear  Sir: 

"We  have  examined  the  recall  petition  of  Edwin  E.  Grant 
and  have  found  over  20%  good  names  as  required  by  the  Con- 
stitution. We  will  take  the  full  twenty  (20)  days  before  certify- 
ing  the   same    to   the   Secretary   of   State. 

"Respectfully,    J.   H.    Zemansky,    Registrar   of   Voters." 


yd        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

twenty  days,  thus  giving  Grant  opportunity  to  com- 
plete his  investigations.  The  Registrar  assured  Mr. 
U'Ren  that  the  full  twenty  days  would  be  taken. 
Grant  continued  his  investigation. 

The  citizen  who  has  not  come  in  contact  with  the 
checking  over  of  a  petition  of  this  sort,  cannot  appre- 
ciate the  detail  and  labor  it  entails.  When  such  work 
is  undertaken  on  behalf  of  an  official  who  is  of  service 
to  some  particular  group  that  may  be  benefited  or 
injured  by  legislation — exploiters,  for  example,  of 
gambling,  prostitution,  public  service — the  group  pays 
the  cost  of  it.  But  Grant  was  in  opposition  to  such 
groups.  They  regarded  him  as  a  menace,  and  to 
them  he  was  a  menace.  Deliberately  his  opponents  had 
undertaken  to  force  him  out  of  office.  So  far  as  he 
could,  Grant  resisted  them,  but  he  had  to  bear  the 
expense  of  the  fighting.  His  loss  in  time  and  money 
incident  to  the  long  campaign  which  was  carried  on 
against  him  was  large. 

In  an  effort  to  discover  further  irregularities  in 
the  circulation  of  the  third  recall  petition,  Grant  sent 
communications  to  a  number  of  those  whose  names 
on  the  petition  had  been  counted.  These  communica- 
tions set  forth  what  the  petition  was,  and  inquired  if 
the  voter  addressed  had   signed  such  a  petition. 

The  replies  were  of  a  character  to  convince  Grant 
that  he  was  warranted  in  going  ahead  with  the  in- 
vestigation. Some  answered  they  had  not  signed  such 
a  petition.  Others  stated  they  had  positively  refused 
to    sign    it.      Others    admitted    they    had    signed    some 


The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest        77 

sort  of  a  petition,  but  on  the  representation  that  it 
was  for  some  other  purpose.70 

While  Grant  was  in  the  midst  of  his  investigation, 
and  fully  a  week  before  the  twenty  days'  time  which 
the  Registrar  had  promised,  had  expired,  the  Registrar, 
without  notice  to  Grant  or  to  Grant's  attorney,  cer- 
tified to  the  sufficiency  of  the  petition  to  the  Secretary 
of  State.  On  this  certification  there  was  nothing  else 
for  the  Secretary  of  State  to  do  but  make  the  pre- 
scribed representation  to  the  Governor,  and  the  Gov- 
ernor to  order  a   recall  election  in  Grant's  district. 

Grant  sought  relief  in  the  courts.  But  both  the 
Superior  Court  at  San  Francisco  and  the  State  Su- 
preme   Court    found   that  the   action   of   the   Registrar 

70  "I  positively  refused  to  sign  the  recall,"  reads  a  reply 
bearing  the   name  of  Ellen  Palmer,   3012  Pierce   street. 

"No  petition  for  your  (Senator  Grant's)  recall  has  been  pre- 
sented to  me,"  reads  the  reply  received  from  Edward  Ingalls, 
3140  California  street,  "and  I  would  not  have  signed  one  if  it 
had." 

A  reply  bearing  the  signature  of  E.  W.  Thompson,  2006 
Lombard  street,  says:  "According  to  your  statement  in  circular 
under  reason  for  recall,  I  was  wrongly  informed  when  I  signed 
the  petition.  While  not  a  drinking  man,  I  am  against  state- 
wide prohibition.  It  cuts  off  quite  a  bit  of  revenue  and  throws 
a   hardship    on    taxpayers." 

A  reply  bearing  the  name  of  Catherine  McKaenna,  3109  Bu- 
chanan street,  states  that  she  signed  the  petition  "with  the 
understanding  it  was  for  a  wet  town."  "I  would  never,"  she 
adds,    "have    signed    it    had    I    read    the    petition." 

A  reply  bearing  the  name  of  Mary  P.  Osgood,  2314  California 
street,  states  that  she  signed  the  recall  petition  under  a  mis- 
representation. "I  understood,"  says  this  reply,  "that  you  were 
not   in   favor  of  the   Redlight   Abatement   act." 

Some  of  those  who  signed  the  petition  knowing  its  purpose, 
make   curious    replies. 

"I  consider  Senator  Grant,"  reads  a  letter  bearing  the  signa- 
ture of  Lester  N.  Sachs,  1760  Pacific  avenue,  "a  dangerous  man 
to  represent  any  district  of  a  large  city  and  certainly  shall  do 
everything  in  my  power  to  have  him  thrown  out  of  the  Senate." 
Mr.  Sachs  then  goes  on  to  describe  himself  as  having  "abso- 
lutely no  interest  in  the  liquor  traffic."  "I  am  only  a  fair  and 
broad-minded  citizen,"  modestly  runs  the  letter,  "and  how  any 
committee  of  supposedly  Intelligent  women  of  a  large  seaport 
town  who  have  or  hope  to  have  daughters,  can  make  a  fight 
in  behalf  of  a  man  who  fathered  the  Redlight  Abatement  act 
is    beyond   my   comprehension." 


yS        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

in  such  matters  is  made  final  by  the  State  Constitution. 
The  courts  could  do  nothing  to  stay  the  proceedings. 
Grant  was  compelled  to  meet  a  recall  election. 

More  than  a  year  had  passed  since  the  recall  move- 
ment against  Senator  Grant  had  been  started.  Few 
gave  credence  to  the  early  announcement  that  Grant's 
opponent  was  to  be  one  Einsfeldt,  a  cigar  dealer. 
There  was,  however,  expressed  opinion  that  the  man 
whom  Grant  had  defeated  in  1912,  "Eddie"  Wolfe, 
would  be  his  opponent.  Indeed,  some  of  those  who 
were  circulating  petitions  against  Grant  had  stated 
the  petition  "was  to  put  Wolfe  back  in  the  Senate  in 
place  of  Grant." 

When  it  became  evident  that  the  recall  election 
would  be  held,  the  San  Francisco  Daily  News,  in  an 
editorial  article  headed  "Wolf!  Wolf!  Wolf!"  an- 
nounced: "It  is  freely  stated  that  Wolfe  is  really  the 
man  behind  the  attempted  recall  of  State  Senator 
E.  E.  Grant.  .  .  .  Should  Grant  be  denied  an  in- 
junction sought  in  the  Superior  Court  to  prevent  the 
recall  election  set  for  October  8,  it  is  stated  Wolfe 
will  prove  to  be  the  recall  candidate  against  him." 

And  when,  a  few  days  later,  Wolfe's  candidacy 
was  definitely  announced,  the  News  complacently  com- 
mented, "Well,  Wolfe  was  smoked  out." 

Grant's  supporters  during  the  campaign  which  fol- 
lowed showed  the  elements  which  were  seeking  Grant's 
recall ;  dwelt  upon  the  excellence  of  his  record  in  the 
Legislature,  and  showed  the  effect  his  removal  under 
such  circumstances  would  have  upon  San  Francisco, 
and  upon  the  legislators  who  might  in  future  repre- 
sent that  city. 


The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest        79 

A  statement  signed  by  some  of  the  most  prominent 
men  and  women  of  San  Francisco  set  forth  that,  "The 
present  recall  is  simply  an  attack  upon  him  (Grant) 
by  the  vice  element,  and,  in  our  opinion,  is  not  aimed 
at  Senator  Grant  so  much  as  at  all  legislators  who 
have  not  voted  in  favor  of  the  vice  interests.  Through 
the  Grant  recall,  this  element  is  seeking  to  club  our 
legislators  into  line — their  line."  71 

"Senator  Grant's  desire  to  do  a  social  service,"  said 
the  San  Francisco  Bulletin,  "cannot  be  questioned  and 
this  bill  (the  Redlight  Abatement  act)  at  the  very 
least,  had  the  merit  of  being  aimed,  not  at  the  unfor- 
tunates who  are  the  victims  of  the  evil,  but  at  the 
property  owners  who  profit  by  it  without  taking  any 
risks  or  assuming  any  social  stigma.  He  was  aiming 
at  a  particularly  miserable  kind  of  business,  whether  he 
hit  it  or  not.  Nobody  charges  that  Grant  had  any 
corrupt  motives  in  securing  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
If  there  was  any  corruption  it  was  in  some  of  the 
opposition  to  the  bill.  The  men  who  are  now  seeking 
Grant's  recall  are  really  furnishing  arguments  in  his 
favor,  since  they  show  that  they  believe  his  bill  has 
hurt  their  business,  and  to  that  extent  accomplished 
its  purpose." 

"No   man,"    said   the    Daily   News,   "with    any   dis- 

71  This  statement  was  signed  by  Hon.  Horace  Davis,  William 
Denman,  Mrs.  Mary  T.  Gamage,  Philip  Bancroft,  George  C. 
Boardman,  Dr.  A.  S.  Musante,  Mrs.  J.  W.  Orr,  Alfred  Greene- 
baum,  Thomas  S.  Williams,  Michael  McBride,  Mrs.  Michael 
McBride,  Walter  Macarthur,  Paul  Scharrenberg,  Rev.  Terence 
Caraher,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Gerberding,  Charles  H.  Bentley,  Louis 
H.  Mooser,  Mrs.  Orlow  Black,  Mrs.  Philip  Bancroft,  Charles  S. 
Tripler,  Dr.  A.  H.  Giannini.  Mrs.  Edward  F.  Glaser.  Jesse  H. 
Steinhart.  Patrick  A.  Buckley  Will  J.  French,  Miss  Marian 
Adams,  Rev.  C.  N.  Lathrop,  Miss  Florence  Musto,  Rev.  Charles 
F.    Aked,    Harry   Geballe. 


80        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

cernment  can  fail  to  know  why  the  Tenderloin  wants 
Grant's  recall.  It  is  all  right  when  Grant  or  any 
other  legislator  fathers  a  law  which  strikes  the  un- 
fortunate victims  of  vice.  But  when  he  fathers  a 
law  like  the  Redlight  Abatement  bill  which  strikes  at 
the  pockets  of  the  rich  men  who  own  the  vice  houses 
he  at  once — in  their  view — becomes  a  menace.  The 
Daily  News  holds  no  brief  for  Grant.  It  offers  no 
opinions  as  to  the  value  of  the  Redlight  act.  It  is 
not  even  strongly  for  Grant,  personally,  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  San  Francisco.  But  when  any  public 
servant  zvhose  general  reputation  is  good  and  whose 
activities  are  admittedly  honest,  can  be  menaced  by  a 
combination  such  as  is  seeking  Grant's  scalp,  it  is 
time  for  every  decent  man  to  wake  up  and  get  busy. 
Grant's  record  on  all  important  matters  before  the 
Legislature  is  good.  In  one  or  two  votes  The  News 
thinks  he  was  wrong.  But  they  were  comparatively 
trivial  and  there  was  room  for  an  honest  difference 
of  opinion.  If  Grant  has  to  face  a  recall  election  pro- 
cured through  a  petition  which  is  known  to  reek 
with  forgeries,  the  decent  people  of  his  district  should 
see  to  it  that  Grant's  attackers  are  defeated  so  de- 
cisively that  they  will  never  forget  it." 

The  San  Francisco  Examiner  on  the  day  before 
the  recall  election  in  an  editorial  article,  headed  "A 
Fight  Between  Decency  and  Vileness,"  stated  that 
"Thursday's  election  in  the  Nineteenth  Senatorial  Dis- 
trict presents  a  simple  issue  of  decent  government.  In 
that  election  the  voter  is  called  on  to  answer  the  one 
question,  'Shall  Senator  Grant  be  recalled?'  and  the 
answer  should  be  an  emphatic  'No.' 


The  Grant- Wolfe  Recall  Contest        81 

"There  is  no  concealment  of  the  purpose  of  the 
recall  movement.  There  is  no  charge  against  Senator 
Grant.  He  is  to  be  recalled  because  he  stood  sponsor 
in  the  late  Legislature  for  the  so-called  'Redlight  Abate- 
ment law' — an  act  for  the  suppression  of  houses  of 
ill- fame.  As  this  reason  would  not  look  very  convin- 
cing in  print,  the  men  behind  the  recall  omit  it  in 
their  statement  on  the  ballot,  and  put  as  their  reasons 
for  recalling  Senator  Grant  that  he  voted  for  legis- 
lation against  the  liquor  traffic,  and  was  willing  that 
children  should  have  the  privilege  of  getting  school 
books  that  were  not  written  by  Calif ornians. 

"Of  course  no  respectable  body  of  California  vo- 
ters would  think  for  a  moment  of  recalling  any  official 
on  such  grounds.  But  there  is  very  great  danger 
that  most  voters  will  stay  away  from  the  polls,  and 
leave  the  election  to  be  decided  by  the  dive-keepers 
and  their  parasites. 

"San  Francisco  cannot  afford  to  have  such  a  splash 
of  mud  put  on  the  city's  reputation.  The  decent  men 
and  women  of  the  Nineteenth  Senatorial  District  owe 
it  to  their  city  to  spare  enough  time  from  their  pri- 
vate business  to  go  to  the  polls  on  Thursday  and 
smash  this  conspiracy  of  the   city's  dregs." 

Those  opposing  Senator  Grant  met  the  statement 
that  his  record  in  the  Legislature  had  been  excellent, 
with  the  charge  that  he  had  voted  for  Prohibition. 

Grant  had  not  voted  for  Prohibition ;  the  Prohibi- 
tion measure  which  was,  at  the  time  of  the  recall 
election,  before  the  State,  had  not  originated  in  the 
Legislature  at  all.  It  had  been  put  on  the  ballot  by 
the  initiative.     But  that  made  no  difference  to  Grant's 


82        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

opponents.  They  covered  his  district  with  enormous 
signs  reading:  "Vote  yes  to  recall  Grant.  He  voted 
for  Prohibition.  He  voted  to  make  the  World's  Fair 
dry.     He  voted  against  Home  Industry." 

One  feature  of  these  signs  was  that  they  appeared 
anonymously.  The  Penal  Code  makes  anonymous  post- 
ing a  misdemeanor.72  But  Grant  was  as  helpless  to 
reach  those  responsible  for  the  signs,  as  he  was  to  bring 
to  account  those  responsible  for  the  forged  names  on 
the  second  recall  petition  that  had  been  circulated 
against  him. 

Senator  Wolfe,  before  the  Legislative  Committee 
appointed  to  consider  the  Grant- Wolfe  case,  disclaimed 
responsibility  for  these  advertisements.  Wolfe  stated 
that  they  had,  without  his  knowledge,  been  put  up  by  an 
enthusiastic  relative.  It  developed  that  this  enthusiastic 
relative  and  Senator  Wolfe  were  at  the  time  living 
in   the   same   house. 

Nor  was  the  charge  that  Senator  Grant  had  voted 
for  Prohibition  confined  to  bill-board  advertising. 
Such  charges  appeared  in  an  advertisement  in  at  least 
one   religious  publication. 

The  Monthly  Calendar  of  St.  Dominic's  Church, 
San  Francisco,  published  by  the  Dominican  Fathers,  in 

72  Section  62a  of  the  Penal  Code  provides  that  "Every  person 
who  intentionally  writes,  prints,  posts,  or  distributes,  or  causes 
to  be  written,  printed,  posted  or  distributed,  any  circular,  pam- 
phlet, letter  or  poster  which  is  designed  or  intended  to  injure 
or  defeat  any  candidate  for  nomination  or  election  to  any  public 
office  by  reflecting  upon  his  personal  character  or  political  action, 
unless  there  appears  upon  such  circular,  pamphlet,  letter,  or 
poster,  in  a  conspicuous  place,  either  the  name  of  the  chairman 
and  secretary,  or  the  names  of  two  officers  at  least  of  the  political 
or  other  organization  issuing  the  same,  or  the  name  and  resi- 
dence, with  the  street  and  number  thereof,  if  any,  of  some 
voter  of  this  State,  and  responsible  therefor,  shall  be  guilty  of 
a  misdemeanor." 


3-lQ 
(V  fl) 


3  2 


84        The  Grant-Wolfe  Recall  Conte3t 

its  October,  1914,  number,  issued  a  few  days  before 
the  recall  election,  contained  an  advertisement  calling 
upon  its  readers  to  recall  Senator  Grant  on  the  ground 
that  Grant  had  voted  for  Prohibition.  The  advertise- 
ment read  as  follows :  "Vote  yes  to  recall  Senator 
Grant.  Special  election,  Thursday,  October  8,  1914, 
19th  Senatorial  District.  Then  stamp  X  in  column  for 
Edward  I.  Wolfe,  to  succeed  him,  tried  and  true 
representative  of  the  people.  Grant  voted  for  Pro- 
hibition at  the  World's  Fair.  Grant  voted  against 
home  industry.     Recall  Grant !" 

When  that  advertisement  was  called  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Dominican  Fathers,  they  disclaimed  knowl- 
edge of  it,  repudiated  it,  and  stopped  further  distribu- 
tion of  the  Calendar  containing  it.  Unfortunately, 
however,  large  numbers  of  the  Calendar  had  been  put 
into  circulation.  The  impression  had  unquestionably 
been  given  throughout  the  parish  that  the  Dominican 
Fathers  had  approved  such  argument. 

And  why  was  the  untrue  statement  that  Grant 
had  voted  for  Prohibition  so  persistently  insisted 
upon?     Because   Grant's  opponents   knew   the   District. 

The  Nineteenth  Senatorial  District  at  the  general 
election  held  a  month  after  the  Grant  recall  gave  a 
vote  of  2084  for  Prohibition,  to  13,273  against  Pro- 
hibition. At  the  same  election  4144  voted  for  the  Red- 
light  Abatement  bill  in  this  district  and  8575  against  it. 
Tarring  Grant  with  Prohibition  by  means  of  agencies 
of  publicity  ranging  from  church  calendars  to  bill- 
board posters,  had  greater  effect  in  the  Nineteenth 
Senatorial  District  than  statements  of  Grant's  excellent 
legislative     record.       The     Prohibition    charge    against 


H 
o  7 

r* 
(f> 

OS 


o  _ 


cos- 


3  3 
O   Q. 


H 
>     to 

H I 

o 
w  2. 
2     SL 


0 
53 


< 

O 

H 

m 


0  2 
0 


E  H 

w  QD 


o*  0 

3 

H  s 

c  O 

»»  ^ 

p  L 

vj  r 


§.  m 

«   > 
oo  O 

<0 

> 

Z 


86        The  Grant- Wolfe  Recall  Contest 

Grant  probably  had  more  to  do  with  accomplishing  his 
defeat  than  all  the  other  arguments  used  against  him 
combined. 

Of  the  16,090  voters  registered  in  the  Nineteenth 
Senatorial  District,  less  than  9000,  a  trifle  more  than 
50  per  cent.,  voted  at  this  recall  election.  The  vote 
to  recall  Grant  on  the  face  of  the  returns  was,  for 
his  recall  4672,  against  his  recall  4141.  The  margin 
against  him  was,  on  the  face  of  the  returns,  531. 73 

73  The  following  selections  from  the  principal  interior  papers 
of  the  State  will  indicate  the  general  attitude  on  the  proceedings 
against    Grant: 

Los  Angeles  Express — "It  is  a  remarkable  situation  thus  pre- 
sented, one  which  should  cause  the  decent  citizens  of  San  Fran- 
cisco to  do  some  prompt  thinking  and  acting.  The  recalling 
of  Grant,  under  the  circumstances,  would  constitute  a  disgrace 
which  no  senatorial  district  and  no  city  can  afford  to  have 
recorded    against    it." 

San  Jose  Mercury — "It  is  true  that  Senator  Grant  was  made 
to  vacate  his  office  by  the  people  for  whose  protection  he  became 
the  champion  of  this  Redlight  bill,  but  it  is  also  true  that 
the  State  is  aware  of  his  service  to  it  and  of  the  penalty  im- 
posed upon  him  for  his  pains.  Some  day  he  will  be  rewarded. 
Some  day  his  name  will  stand  high  on  the  honor  roll  of  public 
service.  Some  day  the  very  people  who  neglected  to  rescue 
him  from  the  clutches  of  the  tenderloin  and  its  powerful  in- 
fluences will  elevate  him  to  a  position  of  trust  higher  than  that 
from  which  he  was  unjustly  removed.  But  even  that  failing, 
he  will  still  have  the  consciousness  of  having  done  his  duty, 
the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  evil  he  fought  abolished.  No 
better   reward    can    come    to   a   man    of   high   purpose." 

Oakland  Enquirer — "Should  Senator  Grant  be  recalled,  San 
Francisco,  and  incidentally  California,  will  be  given  much  bad 
advertising.  Word  would  go  out  over  the  country  that  San 
Francisco  had  on  the  eve  of  the  opening  of  the  Panama-Pacific 
Exposition  recalled  a  State  Senator  because  of  his  support  of  the 
Redlight  Abatement  act.  Such  news  would  be  bad  news  for 
San  Francisco,  and  bad  news  for  the  Exposition.  The  immediate 
effect  would  be  that  thousands  of  decent  people — the  class  of 
people  we  hope  the  Exposition  will  bring  to  California — would 
stay  at  home.  The  undeserved,  but  none  the  less  unenviable 
reputation  which  the  prosecution-immune  and  triumphant  tender- 
loin would  give  San  Francisco  would  convince  most  decent  folk 
that  San  Francisco  is  a  very  good  community  to  stay  away 
from." 

Fresno  Herald — "The  sin  of  Senator  Grant,  against  whom  pros- 
titution has  been  arrayed  to  secure  hie  recall,  is  that  he  cham- 
pioned the  Redlight  bill  which  was  overwhelmingly  passed  by 
the  last  Legislature,  but  against  which  the  referendum  has  been 
invoked.  Prostitution  versus  Senator  Grant  is  the  issue  in  the 
San  Francisco  senatorial  district  he  represents.  Prostitution 
has     chosen     to     insult     the     State     of     California     by     suggesting 


The  Grant- Wolfe  Recall  Contest        87 

The  evidence  which  Grant  had  gathered,  however, 
indicated  enough  irregularities  or  worse  in  the  circu- 
lation of  the  recall  petition  to  invalidate  it.  Grant 
decided  to  bring  the  whole  matter  before  the  Senate 
under  contest  proceedings. 


through  a  recall  the  people  thereof  will  kill  the  Grant  Abate- 
ment bill.  If  the  Herald  mistakes  not  the  resentment  of  the 
people   will   be   a    thunderous    one." 

Santa  Cruz  Evening-  News — "At  this  writing  the  word  from 
San  Francisco  is  that  Senator  Grant  has  been  recalled  by  some 
500  majority  because  of  his  Redlight  Abatement  bill.  That  recall 
settles  the  hash  of  the  brothel  keepers.  That  Redlight  Abate- 
ment bill  should  carry  with  a  whoop  next  month,  and  what  is 
more  many  of  us  who  were  not  especially  interested  in  its  fate 
will  do   our  best  to  see   that   it  does   carry." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  weekly  press  at  San  Francisco — 
the  publications,  by  the  way,  which  had  opposed  the  Graft 
Prosecution,  and  supported  the  Graft  Defense — for  the  most 
part  supported  Wolfe  and  opposed  Grant.  The  following  selec- 
tions   are    characteristic    of    the    attitude    of    these    publications: 

San  Francisco  Argonaut — "Now  there  are  a  whole  lot  of  us 
who  have  no  great  admiration  for  machine  practice  in  politics. 
And,  to  be  entirely  candid,  there  is  nothing  wonderfully  charm- 
ing or  attractive  in  the  personality  of  'Eddie'  Wolfe.  If  we  were 
selecting  a  Senator  from  the  Nineteenth  district  'Eddie'  Wolfe 
would  not  be  our  first  choice.  None  the  less,  we  went  to  the 
polls,  some  thousands  of  us,  and  voted  against  Grant  and  for 
Wolfe.  We  did  it — we  say  we  because  the  Argonaut  had  its  mod- 
est share  in  the  proceeding — not  in  the  spirit  of  endorsement  of 
Wolfe,  his  affiliations,  or  his  political  ways,  but  in  protest  against 
Grant  and  what  he  has  stood  for.  We  were  tired,  literally  worn 
to  the  marrow,  with  the  self-righteousness  and  the  crankisms  of 
progressivism.  We  preferred  Eddie  Wolfe,  calculating  politician 
that  he  is,  with  the  certainty  that  he  would  stand  for  reasonable 
things,  to  the  virtuous  Grant  with  his  propensity  to  novelties, 
whimsicalities,  and  over-virtuous  meddlings.  In  brief,  we  pre- 
ferred a  politician  of  normal  views  and  purposes  to  a  goody-goody 
reformer  nominally  inspired  by  lofty  ideals,  but  in  practice  a  mere 
taker  of  programme,  however  eccentric,  and  a  pestiferous  dis- 
turber of  reasonable  and  established  conditions." 

San  Francisco  Town  Talk — "Wolfe  was  one  of  the  ablest  of 
standpat  Senators  a  few  years  ago.  Indeed  he  was  regarded  by 
many  as  the  ablest  man  in  the  Senate,  and  now  that  the  reaction 
has  set  in,  and  the  standpatter  is  no  longer  abhorred  as  a  vessel 
of  iniquity,  the  probability  is  that  Wolfe  will  win  in  a  walk 
against  Grant.  For  Grant  is  rapidly  becoming  an  anachronism. 
He  belongs  to  that  august  age  of  political  purity  that  now  seems 
so  remote,  the  age  of  Hiram's  heyday  when  the  pillars  of  govern- 
ment were  receiving  a  new  coat  of  varnish.  He  spent  most  of 
his  time  at  Sacramento  reducing  San  Francisco's  blood  pressure. 
He  was  for  making  the  Exposition  wholesome  by  rendering  it  dry, 
and  we  have  to-day  as  a  monument  of  his  genius  and  zeal  for 
purity  the  Redlight  bill  by  which  he  would  abolish  the  oldest  of 
professions.  Senator  Grant  is  an  exotic  flower  that  flourishes 
best  in  communities  that  are  chemically  pure." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
Office  to  Wolfe,   Praise  to   Grant. 

The  Senate  authorized  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mittee of  five  to  make  a  full  and  complete  investiga- 
tion of  the  Grant-Wolfe  contest  and  of  the  matters 
pertaining  thereto.  For  this  purpose  ample  funds, 
$2500,  were  provided.  The  Lieutenant-Governor  ap- 
pointed to  the  committee  Senators  Carr,  Campbell, 
Anderson,    Chandler   and   King. 

Grant's  contention  had  been  from  the  beginning  that 
if  the  recall  had  been  lawfully  invoked,  if  the  election 
had  been  regular,  and  a  majority  of  the  votes  had 
been  cast  against  him,  the  Senate  had  nothing  else 
to  do  than  to  seat  his  opponent. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  recall  had  not  been 
lawfully  invoked,  if  the  election  had  been  irregular, 
or  if  a  majority  of  the  votes  had  not  been  cast  against 
him,  then,  Grant  contended,  the  Senate  could  not  in 
justice  deprive  him  of  his  seat. 

All  that  Grant  asked  was  complete  investigation 
and  just  decision. 

Complete  investigation  was  expected  of  the  com- 
mittee. Its  personnel  was  guaranty  of  just  decision  on 
the  facts  uncovered.  But  that  the  members  were  pre- 
pared, either  by  temperament  or  experience,  to  meet 
the  suave  trickery  of  the  element  that  was  opposing 
Grant  may  well  be  questioned.  The  committee  would 
have   been   more   effective   had   there   been   upon   it   at 


Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant         89 

least  one  member  of  the  aggressiveness  and  deter- 
mination of  Kehoe  of  Humboldt. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  investigation  the  com- 
mittee disregarded  technical  objections. 

The  recall  provision  of  the  State  Constitution,  for 
example,  provides  that  the  circulator  of  a  recall  peti- 
tion must  be  a  qualified  elector.  To  be  a  qualified 
elector  one  must  be  registered  as  such.  The  experiences 
at  San  Francisco  demonstrated  good  reason  for  this 
constitutional  precaution.  The  forger  of  such  a  peti- 
tion may  be  located  if  he  is  registered.  It  may  be 
extremely  difficult  to  locate  him  if  he  is  not  registered. 

Among  those  who  circulated  petitions  against  Grant 
was  one  Swain.  The  face  of  the  Swain  section  of  the 
petition  showed  it  to  have  been  verified  on  April  4,  1914. 
Swain,  it  was  shown,  did  not  register  until  April  28. 
There  were  on  this  petition  111  names,  secured  appar- 
ently before  April  4,  at  a  time  when  Swain  was  not  a 
qualified  elector.  Grant  contended  that,  since  Swain 
prior  to  April  28,  the  date  on  which  he  registered, 
was  not  competent  to  circulate  a  recall  petition,  these 
111  names  should  be  rejected. 

To  meet  this,  the  opposition  to  Grant  offered  evi- 
dence that  the  petition  had  actually  been  verified  on 
May  4,  instead  of  April  4,  as  its  face  showed.  This 
would  have  allowed  Swain  six  days,  from  April  28 
to  May  4,  to  get  his  111  names.  The  committee  states 
in  its  report  that  this  evidence  was  satisfactory  to  the 
committee,  but  the  committee  goes  on  to  say  that  it 
was  of  the  opinion  "that  these  signatures  should  not 
be  thrown  out  even  if  the  circulator  had  not  been 
registered." 


go         Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant 

The  Constitution,  as  another  example,  provides  that 
"each  signer  (of  a  recall  petition)  shall  add  to  his 
signature  his  place  of  residence,  giving  the  street  and 
number,  if  such  exist."  Grant  claimed  that  some 
seventy-seven  of  the  signers  of  the  petition  had  not 
done  this.  The  committee  held  that  this  allegation 
was  not  substantiated,  but  gave  its  opinion  that  "this 
objection  was  highly  technical  in  character  and  was 
not  in  itself  sufficient  to  justify  the  elimination  of 
such  names." 

In  what  the  committee  termed  the  more  substan- 
tial grounds  of  objection,  Grant's  contentions  were 
pretty  well  sustained. 

Grant  alleged  in  his  complaint  that  not  less  than 
twelve  names  on  the  petition  had  been  signed  more 
than  once  and  counted  more  than  once  by  the  Regis- 
trar. Of  such  duplicate  signatures,  the  committee  found 
twenty-four,  just  double  the  number  which  Grant 
had  alleged. 

Grant  also  contended  that  not  less  than  fifty-one 
signatures  on  the  petition  counted  against  him  were 
of  persons  who,  at  the  time  they  signed,  were  not 
qualified  electors  of  the  district.  The  committee  found 
the  signatures  of  fifty-seven  who  were  not  registered 
at  the  time  they  had  signed  the  petition,  while  the 
signatures  of  twelve  appeared  who  were  not  qualified 
electors  at  the  time  of  the  investigation. 

For  the  purpose  of  the  investigation,  Grant  fur- 
nished the  committee  with  a  list  of  ninety-one  persons 
whose  names  appeared  on  the  petitions,  but  who  had 
written  Grant  denying  their  signatures. 

Of    the    ninety-one,    the    committee    had    fifty-three 


Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant         91 

before  it.  Of  these,  three  or  four  stated  they  had 
signed  the  petition  knowing  what  it  was.  Four  denied 
their  signatures,  insisting  their  names  had  been  forged. 
P'orty-five  out  of  the  fifty-three  when  asked  whether 
or  not  they  had  signed  a  recall  petition  against  Grant 
stated  they  had  not.  When  shown  the  signatures, 
however,  they  admitted  them  to  be  genuine,  but  con- 
tinued to  insist  they  had  signed  no  recall  petition. 
They  had  signed  a  petition,  many  of  them  stated,  on 
the  representation  that  it  was  to  prevent  San  Francisco 
going  "dry."  They  had  not  understood  they  were 
signing  a  recall  petition  against  Senator  Grant  or  any 
other  official. 

It  was  shown  that  sheets  of  names  signed  to  one 
petition — to  keep  open  San  Francisco  saloons,  for 
example — could  have  been  detached  and  then  fastened 
to  the  Grant  recall  petition. 

In  addition  to  these  ninety-one  names,  Grant  fur- 
nished the  committee  with  the  names  of  thirty-six 
persons  whose  names  appeared  on  the  petition,  but 
who  were  prepared  to  testify  that  they  had  been 
induced  to  sign  through  misrepresentation.  The  com- 
mittee did  not  call  these  witnesses,  although  the  gross 
misrepresentation  under  which  signatures  had  been 
secured  to  the  petition  became  the  principal  feature 
of  the  investigation. 

In  concluding  its  report  on  the  findings,  the  com- 
mittee stated  that  "this  investigation  has  disclosed 
abuses  in  securing  signatures  to  recall  and  other  peti- 
tions to  the  remedying  of  which  by  appropriate  legis- 
lation the  attention  of  this  Legislature  may  properly  be 
directed." 


92  Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant 

Wolfe  declared  before  the  committee  that  he 
could  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  petition,  for, 
he  insisted,  he  had  up  to  a  short  time  before  the 
election  steadfastly  refused  to  become  a  candidate 
against  Grant.74 

A  new  element  in  the  very  bad  mess  was  intro- 
duced by  J.  H.  Zemansky,  Registrar  of  Voters  at 
San    Francisco. 

Early  in  the  investigation,  Zemansky  offered  twenty 
names  which  he  contended  should  have  been  counted 
on  the  petition  but  were  not.  Thirteen  of  these  names, 
he  held,  had  been  marked  not  registered  through 
erroneous  precincting,  six  had  been  overlooked,  one 
had  not  been  counted  because  of  the  given  name  John 

74  Wolfe's  efforts  to  escape  responsibility  for  the  position  in 
which  he  found   himself  brought  forth  a  number  of  sharp  retorts. 

"Wolfe  in  his  statement  of  his  candidacy,"  said  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Daily  News  (issue  October  6,  1914),  "greatly  deplores  the 
accusation  that  he  is  the  candidate  of  the  Redlight  forces.  He 
denies  it.  Perhaps  in  one  sense  he  is  not.  But  every  dive-keeper, 
every  thug  in  the  Nineteenth  Senatorial  District  is  for  Wolfe  and 
against  Grant.  Figure  it  out  for  yourself  who  is  the  candidate  of 
the  dives." 

"I  haven't,"  said  Senator  Frank  A.  Benson  in  a  speech  before 
the  Senate,  March  10,  1915,  "the  power  to  look  into  the  heart  of 
Senator  Wolfe  and  see  what  motives  animated  him.  I  haven't  the 
power  to  look  into  all  the  details  of  the  campaign  that  resulted 
in  his  elevation  to  the  position  which  he  holds  now,  but  sweeping 
aside  all  of  the  subtle  eloquence  with  which  he  has  treated  you, 
this  fact  stands  out  clearly:  there  was  but  one  issue  in  the  recall 
election  at  which  he  succeeded  Senator  Grant,  and  that  was  the 
issue  of  vice  against  decency.  Whether  Senator  Wolfe  was  re- 
sponsible for  that  or  not,  I  have  no  way  of  knowing.  He  says  he 
is  not  and  so  far  the  record  is  with  him.  But  the  situation  was 
there,  and  he  took  advantage  of  that  situation.  Senator  Grant 
was  recalled  because  he  stood  for  the  Redlight  Abatement  bill,  and 
let  not  all  this  subtlety  give  you  any  impression  that  any  other 
condition  prevailed.  .  .  Why  are  you  gentlemen  (the  San  Fran- 
cisco members  elected  as  Union  Labor  candidates)  sitting  here  in 
the  attitude  of  opposition  to  Senator  Grant?  Is  it  because  he  did 
anything  wrong  for  labor?  No,  it  is  because  you  disagree  with  his 
stand  upon  the  Redlight  Abatement  bill,  and  that  is  the  reason 
that  Senator  Wolfe  occupies  his  seat  to-day.  That  may  not  have 
the  subtlety  that  he  affords  to  it;  I  am  not  going  to  appeal  to 
your  religions.  I  have  no  tremulous  talk  to  make  about  my  fam- 
ily or  things  of  that  kind;  but  there  is  the  fact  and  you  can't  get 
away  from  It." 


Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant         93 

instead  of  Giovanni.  Later,  the  Registrar  filed  his 
certificate  that  196  additional  names  marked  "not  regis- 
tered" at  the  time  the  petition  was  originally  exam- 
ined were  in  fact  registered  at  the  time  the  petitions 
were  filed.75  Of  the  196  names,  the  committee  re- 
jected 61,  on  the  ground  that  they  "appeared  on  sec- 
tions of  the  petition  verified  some  considerable  time 
before  the  petitions  were  filed  and  were  obviously 
names  of  persons  who  were  not  registered  at  the  time 
of  the  signing."  The  committee  accepted  the  135  names 
remaining,  and  concluded  they  should  be  added  to  the 
number  on  the  recall  petition. 

By  the  time  the  investigations  of  the  committee  had 
reached  this  point,  the  first  part  of  the  session  was 
drawing  to  its  close.  It  was  thought  that  the  com- 
mittee would  continue  its  work  through  the  consti- 
tutional recess,  and  be  ready  to  report  when  the 
Legislature  reconvened.  This  would  have  made  possi- 
ble the  employment  of  a  handwriting  expert,  and  have 
ensured  an  investigation  as  searching  as  would  have 
been  made  had  conditions  been  reversed  and  a  com- 
mittee of  the  character  of  that  on  Public  Morals  of 
"machine"  days  been  in  the  place  of  the  Carr  com- 
mittee, with  a  machine  Senator  standing  in  the  place 
of  Senator  Grant.  Such  a  committee  as  the  old 
Public  Morals  committee  would,  of  course,  have  seated 

75  Zemansky's  explanation  was  that  the  persons  whose  names 
were  not  counted,  had  been  registered  during  the  two  or  three 
days  before  the  filing-  of  the  petitions  and  that  the  original  affida- 
vits had  not  been  returned  to  the  office  of  the  Registrar  and 
bound  in  the  registration  books  at  the  time  he  made  his  original 
certificate,  and  that  he  did  not  attempt  to  check  against  these 
affidavits  for  the  reason  that  the  recall  petition  appeared  to  have 
a  considerable  number  of  names  in  excess  of  the  required  number 
and  that  hence  such  examination  was  unnecessary — see  Report  of 
Committee  Senate  Daily  Journal,   for  January  28,   1915. 


94         Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant 

the  "machine"  Senator  whether  or  no.  But  Grant 
made  no  such  request.  He  asked  only  thorough  inves- 
tigation of  the  extraordinary  conditions  attending  his 
recall,  and  protection  in  his  rights  as  a  member  of 
the  State  Senate.  Nevertheless,  the  committee  decided 
to  go  no  further  with  the  investigation,  and  to  base 
its  findings  on  the  evidence  in  hand.  On  the  evidence 
in  hand,  the  committee  found  for  Wolfe  and  against 
Grant. 

In  their  by  no  means  exhaustive  examination,  the 
committee  found  that  fifty-seven  of  the  signers  of  the 
petition  were  not  registered  when  they  had  signed. 
Fifteen  whom  Grant  alleged  were  prepared  to  testify 
they  had  signed  before  they  registered  were  not  ex- 
amined. The  fifteen,  the  committee  admits  in  its 
report,  would  have  probably  increased  the  number  to 
seventy-one.  A  recount  of  the  names  counted  as 
valid  showed  that  the  number  was  three  less  than 
the  number  certified  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  The 
committee  found  twenty-four  duplicate  signatures,  and 
twelve  signatures  of  persons  who  were  not  registered 
at  all..  These  with  the  four  who  had  sworn  their 
names  had  been  forged  made  a  total  of  114.  The 
addition  of  the  111  names  on  the  Swain  petition 
would  have  made  a  total  of  225.  The  discovery  of 
thirty-three  more  irregular  or  forged  signatures  would 
have  been  sufficient — if  we  reject  the  later  discoveries 
of  the  San  Francisco  authorities — to  bring  the  number 
of  signatures  upon  the  petition  below  the  number  re- 
quired for  the  invoking  of  the  recall. 

The    committee    did    not    consider — and    apparently 


Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant         95 

with  very  good  reason — that  it  should  reject  signa- 
tures which,  although  secured  by  fraudulent  misrep- 
resentation, were  clearly  genuine.  Had  the  forty-five 
names  of  the  witnesses  who  testified  they  had  signed 
because  the  subject  of  the  petition  had  been  misrepre- 
sented to  them,  been  eliminated,  there  would  not — had 
the  signatures  mentioned  above  been  rejected,  and  the 
claims  of  the  discovery  of  new  names  disallowed — have 
been  enough  names  on  the  petition  by  twelve  to  have 
invoked  the  recall  against  Grant. 

What  further  investigation  would  have  developed 
is,  of  course,  a  matter  of  conjecture. 

That  the  committee's  investigation  was  exhaustive, 
or  its  report  convincing,  none  who  followed  the  aston- 
ishing "conspiracy  of  the  city's  dregs,"  as  the  San 
Francisco  Examiner  declared  the  campaign  against 
Senator   Grant   to   have   been,   can   admit. 

But  in  behalf  of  the  committee  it  must  be  said 
that  it  was  seriously  handicapped  because  Grant  had 
been  handicapped  in  the  presentation  of  his  case.  On 
the  other  hand,  Wolfe,  with  a  world  of  assistance — 
and  the  sympathy  of  the  San  Francisco  authorities  and 
largely  of  the  San  Francisco  press — was  free  to  make 
his  contentions  appear  to  the  best  advantage. 

Senator  Grant  is  not  a  wealthy  man.  His  stand 
for  clean  conditions  has  brought  down  upon  him  the 
wrath  of  the  San  Francisco  underworld.  To  meet  the 
several  movements  started  for  his  recall  required  much 
of  his  time  and  involved  no  inconsiderable  expendi- 
ture.76 

76  The  loss  of  time  and  expenditure  of  money  is  but  part  of 
what  a  man  courts  who  interferes  with  the  activities  of  exploiters 
of  tenderloin  conditions.  He  finds  himself  harassed  at  every  point. 
An  architect  at  San  Francisco  who  exposed  vice  conditions  in  the 


96  Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant 

Some  indication  of  the  amount  of  such  expenditures 
is  offered  in  the  provisions  made  by  the  Legislature 
to  meet  the  campaign  expenses  of  Senator  Owens  of 
Contra   Costa   County. 

The  State  Constitution  provides  that  when  a  recall 
movement  against  an  office-holder  fails,  he  shall  be 
reimbursed  out  of  the  State  treasury  for  expenditures 
legally  made.  Senator  Owens  defeated  the  recall 
movement  brought  against  him.  The  1915  Legisla- 
ture set  aside  $7000  out  of  which  legal  expenses  in- 
curred by  Senator  Owens  are  to  be  paid.  Grant,  on 
the  other  hand,  having  been  defeated,  was  not  reim- 
bursed. It  may  be  added,  that  while  the  Owens  recall 
fight  lasted  a  few  weeks  only,  the  Grant  recall  ex- 
tended over  a  period  of  nearly  two  years.  Unques- 
tionably Grant's  defense  of  his  office  cost  Grant  much 
more  than   the   amounts   expended   by   Senator   Owens. 

Had  the  conditions  been  reversed,  had  reputable 
citizens,  for  example,  been  attempting  the  recall  of  a 
Senator  who  had  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  been  the 
mouthpiece  and  defender  of  racetrack  gamblers,  liquor 
sellers,  lottery  keepers  and  pawnbrokers ;  then  gam- 
blers, booze-sellers,  lottery  companies  and  pawn-brokers 
would  have  seen  to  it  that  plenty  of  funds  were  pro- 
vided to  keep  their  Senatorial  mouthpiece  in  his  place. 

Mission  district,  found  the  stakes  fixing-  the  lines  of  a  building  he 
was  beginning  changed  in  the  night.  He  was  obliged  to  employ 
watchmen  to  protect  his  clients.  He  found  himself  harassed  by 
the  San  Francisco  police  and  made  subject  of  petty  criminal  pros- 
ecution. Grant  in  his  turn  was  put  to  much  petty  annoyances. 
The  following  letter,  signed,  "One  of  Your  Victims,"  is  sample  of 
what  his  mail  brought  him: 

"Mr.  Edwin  E.  Grant:  By  your  wicked  Redlight  bill,  you  will 
make  an  outcast,  a  beggar  and  a  wanderer  of  hundreds  of  helpless 
women,  myself  among  them;  but  I  give  you  full  and  fair  warning 
that  on  the  day  that  is  done,  or  as  soon  after  as  possible,  I  In- 
tend  to   shoot  you  and   no  power  on  earth  will   save  you." 


Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant  97 

But  as  those  who  applaud  Senator  Grant  for  his 
truly  admirable  stand  in  the  Senate  had  no  money  at 
stake,  they  confined  expression  of  their  appreciation, 
save  in  exceptional  cases,  to  applause 

Grant   footed   the  bills. 

By  the  time  the  third  recall  movement  against  him 
had  brought  him  to  his  contest  before  the  Senate  he 
was  seriously  embarrassed  financially. 

When  after  nearly  two  years  of  meeting  the  "cam- 
paign of  the  city's  dregs,"  Grant  opened  his  contest 
before  the  Senate,  he  needed  the  services  of  detectives 
and  attorneys.  He  had  no  funds  to  employ  either. 
He  had  to  get  on  as  best  he  could.  That  he  got  his 
case  into  as  good  shape  as  he  did  is  astonishing  to 
those  who  know  the  difficulties  under  which  he  labored. 
He  did  succeed  in  bringing  enough  evidence  before 
the  committee,  which  to  the  plain  citizen  at  least, 
seemed  sufficient  to  have  warranted  the  committee 
going  to  the  bottom  of  the  bad  mess. 

It  would,  of  course,  have  been  well  had  Grant 
been  in  a  position  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  bad 
mess  himself.  But  he  was  not.  And,  after  all,  the 
fight  was  not  so  much  Grant's  as  it  was  the  fight 
of  the   State  of   California. 

Grant,  in  being  ousted  from  the  Senate,  was,  of 
course,  greatly  injured.  But  again,  the  unseating  of 
Senator  Grant  on  the  expressed  ground  that  he  had 
voted  for  a  temperance  measure,  and  for  the  further, 
but  not  expressed,  reason  that  he  was  sponsor  for  the 
Redlight  Abatement  act,  injured  the  State  of  California 
more  than  it  injured  Senator  Grant. 


98  Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant 

The  State  of  California  had  more  at  stake  in  this 
contest  than  did  Senator  Grant.  Senator  Grant  was 
not  in  a  position  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  bad  mess. 
The  State  of  California  had,  however,  provided  $2500 
for  complete  investigation  and  expected  the  work  to 
be  done.  The  Senate  contest  committee  was  in  a 
position   to  go  to  the  bottom  of  it. 

But  of  the  $2500  provided,  the  committee  found  it 
necessary  to  use  only  $230.85. 

From  their  findings,  there  was  nothing  for  the 
members  of  the  committee  to  do  but  to  recommend 
the  seating  of  Wolfe.77 

The  acceptance  of  the  recommendations  by  the  Sen- 
ate followed  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  vote  on  the 
committee's  report  can  scarcely  be  held  to  reflect  the 
views  of  the  Senators  on  the  recall  of  Senator  Grant. 
The  real  sentiment  of  the  majority  of  the  Senators  was 
better  shown  in  resolutions  commending  Senator  Grant, 

77  The  tone  of  the  committee's  report  in  some  places  did  Grant 
injustice,  and  in  others  gave  Wolfe  credit  which  might  well  have 
been  withheld  until  more  extensive  investigation  had  been  made. 
For  example,   the  report  set  forth: 

"It  was  urged  (by  Grant)  that  there  were  many  duplicate  sig- 
natures on  the  recall  petition.  Your  committee  found  twenty-four 
of  these." 

The  inference  from  that  paragraph  is  that  Grant  made  extrav- 
agant claims  of  duplications,  and  succeeded  in  establishing  only 
twenty-four. 

The  fact  is  that  Grant  alleged  twelve  duplications.  The  com- 
mittee found  twenty-four,  double  the  number  that  Grant  had 
specified. 

Or  again,  the  report  sets  forth: 

"In  fairness  to  the  contestee  (Wolfe)  your  committee  states 
that  there  was  no  evidence  connecting  him  with  any  of  the  mis- 
representations incidentally  disclosed  during  the  course  of  the 
investigation." 

That  is  probably  true.  So  far  as  the  writer  knows  no  evidence 
on   this  point,  one  way  or  the  other,  was  taken. 

Nevertheless,  there  were  circumstances  surrounding  the  case 
which  suggested  at  least  the  advisability  of  the  committee  refrain- 
ing from  comment  on  Wolfe's  connection  with  the  affair  until  after 
exhaustive  investigation. 


Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant  99 

which  were  introduced  by  Senator  Kehoe,  and  adopted 
immediately  after  the  vote  giving  Wolfe  his  seat  had 
been  taken.     The  resolutions  are  as  follows : 

"Whereas,  Senator  Edwin  E.  Grant  has  during 
his  term,  as  a  member  of  this  Senate,  rendered  dis- 
tinguished service  to  the  State ;  and 

"Whereas,  He  has,  by  his  high  ideals,  his  ster- 
ling character  and  his  lofty  conception  of  official  duty, 
endeared  himself  to  his  associates;  therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia extend  to  Senator  Edwin  E.  Grant  this  ex- 
pression of  high  regard  and  esteem  on  the  termina- 
tion of  his  honorable  services  in  this  Senate ;  be  it 
further 

"Resolved,  That  this  resolution  be  printed  in  the 
Journal,  and  that  a  copy  be  sent  to  Senator  Grant  by 
the  President  of  the  Senate." 

Scarcely  had  the  resolutions  been  offered,  than 
Wolfe  was  on  his  feet  suavely  stating  that  if  the  reso- 
lutions would  take  the  sting  of  defeat  from  Senator 
Grant,  or  offer  him  any  consolation,  he  (Wolfe)  would 
not  object  to  their  adoption. 

The  temper  of  the  Senate  was  shown  in  the 
smashing  answer  to  Wolfe's  sneer.  Scarcely  had 
Wolfe  stopped  speaking,  than  Luce  of  San  Diego  had 
begun  his  reply. 

"Senator  Grant,"  thundered  Luce,  "does  not  require 
removal  of  sting  of  defeat,  nor  does  he  need  consola- 
tion. I  seconded  the  motion  to  adopt  these  resolutions 
because  it  is  our  duty  to  adopt  them.  The  State  of 
California  owes  to  Senator  Grant  a  very  great  debt. 
He  championed  a  cause  on  the  floor  of  this  Senate, 
when  it  was  unpopular  in  the   State  and  unpopular  in 


ioo        Office  to  Wolfe,  Praise  to  Grant 

his  district.  But  his  cause  was  right.  The  State  has 
since  endorsed  it  at  the  polls  by  overwhelming  vote. 
That  cause  is  now  gaining  throughout  the  nation. 
It  is  no  more  than  due  this  man  that  we  adopt  these 
resolutions — not  to  relieve  him  of  the  sting  of  defeat  or 
for  consolation,  which  he  does  not  need,  but  as  the 
duty  of  the  Senate." 


CHAPTER  IX. 
Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation. 

The  scandals  attending  the  recall  of  Senator  Grant 
emphasized  other  scandals  of  the  misuse  of  the  Initia- 
tive and  Referendum.  Generally  speaking,  the  same 
element  which  had  brought  about  Grant's  recall,  was 
responsible  for  the  misuse  of  the  Initiative  and  Refer- 
endum. These  elements  sought  through  Direct  Legis- 
lation, to  secure  what,  since  the  breaking  down  of  the 
State  machine,  could  no  longer  be  had  through  the 
Legislature,  and  to  set  aside  laws  which  interfered 
with   underworld   and   public-service  exploitation. 

The  first  important  measure  to  go  on  the  ballot 
under  the  Initiative  in  California  was  a  bill  to  legalize 
racetrack  gambling.  The  petition  was  so  worded  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  bill  was  to  prevent  racetrack 
gambling.  Thousands  of  signatures  were  secured  on 
such  representation.  Furthermore,  signatures  on  this 
petition  are  now  known  to  have  been  deliberately  forged. 
The  bill  went  on  the  ballot  because  of  misrepresenta- 
tion that  amounted  to  fraud  and  forgery.  But  the  mis- 
representation was  exposed,  the  fraud  detected,  and 
the  bill  defeated  at  the  polls  by  overwhelming  majority. 

In  1913,  important  acts  were  held  up  under  Refer- 
endum petitions  to  which  thousands  of  names  had  been 
forged.  In  one  instance,  that  of  the  Redlight  Abate- 
ment act,  a  competent  handwriting  expert,  Mr.  Theo- 
dore Kytka,  asserted  that  had  all  the  forged  signatures 


102        Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation 

been  struck  from  the  petition,  there  would  not  have 
remained  enough  valid  signatures  to  have  invoked  the 
Referendum.  On  the  so-called  Non-Sale  of  Game  bill 
petitions,  there  were  detected  more  than  10,000  forged 
names. 

Governor  Johnson  in  his  biennial  message  to  the 
1915  Legislature  pointed  out  these  abuses  and  urged 
that  steps  be  taken  to  prevent  their  recurrence. 

"It  would  be  idle  to  deny,"  he  said,  "that  certain 
abuses  (of  the  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall) 
have  arisen  just  as  abuses  in  the  early  trial  of  new 
policies  ever  will  arise.  It  is  our  duty  to  remedy 
those  abuses,  if  possible,  and  therefore,  I  direct  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  solemn  acts  of  the  Legis- 
lature have  been  held  up  and  presented  to  the  people 
by  Referendum  upon  petitions  that  in  part,  at  least, 
were  fraudulent.  The  Fish  and  Game  bill  was  passed 
by  the  Legislature,  signed  by  the  Governor,  and  re- 
ceived the  solemn  sanction  that  the  Constitution  re- 
quires for  the  making  of  a  law.  A  Referendum  peti- 
tion was  presented  against  this  bill,  part  of  which 
was  founded  upon  rank  forgery.  The  Referendum 
of  the  Redlight  Abatement  bill  was  in  part  composed 
of  forged  signatures.  It  is  stated  that  the  first 
(second)  recall  petition  presented  against  Senator 
Grant  in  San  Francisco  likewise  had  upon  it  many 
forged  signatures.  The  Initiative  and  Referendum 
are  the  very  highest  prerogatives  of  the  people.  To 
permit  their  use  through  fraud  or  forgery  is  to  pol- 
lute at  its  very  source  our  government.  So  scanda- 
lous were  the  frauds  upon  the  Referendum  petitions, 
that  some  months  ago,  I  asked  the  Attorney  General 
to  investigate  them  and  to  take  charge  of  cases  pend- 
ing  in    San    Francisco." 

When  the  Legislature  met  it  had  no  definite  plan 
for  meeting  this  condition.     Had  it  not  been    for  the 


Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation        103 

Grant-Wolfe  Recall  contest  it  is  not  probable  that  much 
would  have  been  attempted.  But  the  developments  of 
the  contest  would  not  permit  of  the  abuses  being  for- 
gotten.    Agitation   for   corrective  legislation   continued. 

Several  measures  to  that  end  were  introduced. 
They  were  divided  into  two  groups : 

( 1 )  The  first  group  proposed  changes  in  the  con- 
stitutional provisions  governing  the  recall  and  direct 
legislation.  Of  this  group,  was  Senate  Constitutional 
Amendment  No.  21.  This  measure  changed  the  method 
of  conducting  recall  elections. 

Under  the  present  arrangement,  the  recall  election, 
and  the  naming  of  the  successor  of  the  incumbent, 
provided  the  incumbent  be  recalled,  is  held  at  the  same 
election.  Under  the  proposed  amendment  there  would 
have  been  two  elections.  At  the  first,  the  question  of 
the  recall  would  have  been  voted  upon.  At  the  second, 
provided  the  incumbent  was  recalled,  his  successor 
would  have  been  elected. 

It  was  claimed  for  this  amendment  that  by  dividing 
the  election  incentive  for  candidates  to  labor  for  the 
recall  of  the  incumbent  would  be  removed,  and  the 
issue  would  be  confined  to  the  merits  of  the  recall. 
This,  and  all  other  suggestions  which  involved  change 
in  the  constitutional  provisions  governing  the  recall, 
initiative  and  referendum,  had  the  earnest  opposition 
of  students  of  direct  legislation.  Prominent  among 
such  opponents  was  Dr.  John  R.  Haynes  of  Los 
Angeles,  California's  first  authority  on  direct  legisla- 
tion. 

Dr.   Haynes  and  his   associates   contended   that   the 


104        Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation 

abuses  of  the  recall,  initiative  and  referendum  were  not 
due  to  any  weakness  of  the  California  direct  legisla- 
tive system,  but  to  non-enforcement  of  the  law  in 
communities,  principally  San  Francisco,  where  the 
abuses  were  practised.  They  urged  that,  instead  of 
tinkering  with  the  constitutional  provisions  governing 
direct  legislation,  the  Legislature  should  clearly  define 
the  crimes  arising  under  the  fraudulent  use  of  referen- 
dum, initiative  and  recall,  and  fix  definitely  the  duty 
of  prosecuting  officers  in  such  cases. 

This  policy  eventually  prevailed.  The  amendment 
proposing  change  in  the  recall  did  not  get  beyond  com- 
mittee. Several  bills  to  prevent  abuses  which  were  fast 
bringing  Direct  Legislation  into  disrepute,  were,  how- 
ever, enacted. 

It  had  been  shown  at  the  Grant-Wolfe  contest  hear- 
ings that  it  would  have  been  quite  possible  for  Grant's 
opponents  to  have  attached  to  a  Grant  recall  petition 
pages  of  names  from  petitions  circulated  for  other  pur- 
poses. To  make  such  a  trick  impossible  in  future, 
Senate  Bill  725,  introduced  by  Chandler,  provided  that 
at  the  top  of  each  page  after  the  first  page  of  every 
initiative,  referendum  or  recall  petition,  shall  be  printed 
a  short  title  showing  the  nature  of  the  petition  and  the 
subject  to  which  it  relates. 

Two  companion  bills,  also  introduced  by  Chandler, 
were   suggested  by   the   experiences  at   San   Francisco. 

The  first  (Senate  Bill  726)  made  it  a  felony  for  any 
person  to  subscribe  a  fictitious  name  to  any  initiative, 
referendum  or  recall  petition,  or  to  any  nominating 
petition,    or    to    subscribe    the   name    of   another.     The 


Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation        105 

penalty  was  made  imprisonment  in  State  prison  for  not 
less  than  one  nor  more  than  fourteen  years. 

In  the  second  (Senate  Bill  727),  its  authors  endeav- 
ored to  guard  against  such  abuses  as  those  which  at- 
tended the  circulation  of  the  Grant  recall  petition. 
This  measure  provided  that  it  shall  be  unlawful: 

( 1 )  For  the  circulator  to  misrepresent  or  make  any 
false  statement  concerning  such  a  petition  to  any  per- 
son who  signs,  makes  inquiries  about,  desires  to  sign, 
or  is  requested  to  sign. 

(2)  To  file  any  petition  which  is  known  to  him 
filing  it  to  contain  false  or  fraudulent  signatures. 

(3)  To  circulate  or  cause  to  be  circulated  petitions 
known  to  contain  false,  forged  or  fictitious  names. 

(4)  To  make  any  false  affidavit  concerning  such 
petition,  or  the  signatures  appended  thereto. 

The  penalty  for  infringement  of  this  act  was  made 
imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  or  State  prison  not  to 
exceed  two  years  or  by  fine  not  to  exceed  $5000,  or 
by  both. 

There  was  clever  suggestion  about  the  lobbies  that 
the  penalty  provided  in  these  several  bills  should  not 
be  made  more  serious  than  misdemeanor.  Such  sug- 
gestion was  even  made  before  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tions to  which  the  measure  was  referred.  Indeed,  the 
original  draft  of  Senate  Bill  727  provided  misde- 
meanor penalty.  But  the  seriousness  of  the  offenses 
committed  by  those  who  were  responsible  for  the  meth- 
ods employed  to  secure  the  recall  of  Senator  Grant 
had  so  impressed  members  of  the  type  of  Chandler, 
that  the  bills  were  passed  with  the  more  serious  pen- 


106        Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation 

alties  provided.  Not  a  vote  was  cast  against  any  of 
this  group  of  bills   in   either   House. 

These  measures  definitely  define  the  crime  and 
definitely  prescribe  the  penalties  for  fraudulently  invok- 
ing the  initiative,  referendum  or  recall.  But  in  com- 
munities, such  as  San  Francisco,  where  the  influence 
of  the  underworld  reaches  high,  the  laws  will  offer 
little  protection,  for,  if  the  future  is  to  be  judged  by 
the  past,  they  will  not  be  enforced. 

For  months,  for  example,  efforts  were  made  at  San 
Francisco  to  secure  prosecution  of  those  responsible 
for  the  frauds  committed  in  connection  with  the  Red- 
light  Abatement  petition,  and  the  second  petition  for 
the  recall  of  Senator  Grant.  The  names  of  those  re- 
sponsible were  known,  but  effective  prosecution  was 
not  secured.  There  seemed  question  whether  or  not 
the  Attorney  General  could  of  his  own  volition  take 
over  the  prosecution.  Governor  Johnson  finally  re- 
quested him  to  investigate  and  take  charge  of  the  cases. 

That  there  might  be  no  question  in  future  as  to  the 
Attorney  General's  powers  in  such  matter,  a  bill  was 
introduced  (Senate  Bill  724)  to  amend  Section  470  of 
the  Political  Code,  to  provide  definitely  that  whenever 
in  his  judgment  there  is  reasonable  evidence  that  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  California  relating  to  State  elec- 
tions, including  the  laws  relating  to  the  circulation  or 
signing  of  initiative,  referendum  or  recall  petitions,  or 
the  certification  thereof,  have  been  violated,  and  the 
local  officers  have  not  exercised  due  diligence  in  prose- 
cuting the  offenders  guilty  of  such  violations,  the  At- 
torney General  may  institute  and  conduct  the  neces- 
sary proceedings  for  the  prosecution  of  such  offenders. 


Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation        107 

Such  a  provision  would  have  meant  much  in  a 
community  where  a  District  Attorney  owed  his  elec- 
tion to,  or  was  for  any  reason  subject  to  dictation  of 
an  element  making  corrupt  use  of  any  of  the  provis- 
ions of  direct  legislation.  But  this  measure  did  not 
become  a  law.  It  was  declared  to  be  unnecessary,  and 
remained  in  committee  until  the  close  of  the  session. 

But  something  more  than  clearly  stated  laws  and 
prosecuting  officers  with  the  integrity  and  ability  to 
enforce  them  is  necessary  if  the  fraudulent  use  of  the 
initiative,  referendum  and  recall  is  to  be  prevented. 
A  healthy  public  spirit  must  impress  upon  judges  on 
the  bench  that  the  forging  of  a  direct-legislation  peti- 
tion is  even  a  more  serious  crime  against  society  than 
the  forging  of  a  check.  At  San  Francisco,  when  one 
of  the  circulators  of  a  Redlight  Abatement  petition 
was  convicted  of  having  placed  upon  it  hundreds  of 
fictitious  names,  he  was  sentenced  to  four  years  in  the 
penitentiary,  but  was  immediately  released  by  the  trial 
judge.  More  recently,  when  nine  men  plead  guilty  to 
wholesale  violation  of  the  law  in  obtaining  signatures 
to  the  referendum  petition  which  held  up  three  im- 
portant acts  of  the  1913  Legislature,78  the  Superior 
Judge  before  whom  they  appeared  turned  them  loose 
on  probation,  the  probation  term  being  fixed  at  one  year. 

It  is  now  pretty  well  established  that  at  San  Fran- 
cisco   the    underworld   element   may   violate    laws    safe- 


78  The  Redlight  Abatement  act,  the  Water  Commission  act,  the 
Non-Sale  of  Game  law.  An  attempt  to  hold  up  a  fourth  measure 
which  provided  for  the  closing  of  saloons  between  the  hours  of  2 
and  6  a.  m.  failed  because  so  many  forged  signatures  were  struck 
from  the  petition  as  to  reduce  the  number  of  signatures  below 
legal   requirements. 


io8        Safeguarding  Direct  Legislation 

guarding  the  public  against  abuse  of  the  initiative,  ref- 
erendum, and  recall  without  danger  of  suffering  the 
prescribed  penalty.  The  ease  with  which  forgers  of 
the  initiative  petition  to  legalize  racetrack  gambling 
escaped  punishment,  even  after  conviction  in  one  case 
at  Sacramento,  was  unquestionably  earnest  to  the  San 
Francisco  forgers  of  the  referendum  petitions  that  they 
would  not  be  prosecuted,  or  if  they  were  prosecuted 
their  prosecution  would  be  without  danger  to  them- 
selves. The  outcome  of  the  San  Francisco  referendum 
and  recall  forgery  cases  is  earnest  to  the  underworld 
that  direct  legislation  petitions  may  in  that  city  be 
forged  with  impunity.79  Recurrence  at  San  Francisco  at 
least  of  the  scandals  which  have  already  done  much  to 
disturb  public  confidence  in  direct  legislation,  may  be 
looked  for  as  a  matter  of  course.  And  such  recurrence 
will  be  due  to  the  failure  of  the  District  Attorney's  office 
to  conduct  effective  prosecution  of  such  cases,  and  to 
the  course  of  those  San  Francisco  Superior  Judges  who 
have  turned  loose  even  those  who  were  finally  convicted. 


79  "Remembering  the  safety  with  which  forgers  and  perjurers 
committed  their  crimes  in  the  pay  of  the  racetrack  gamblers  of 
1912,"  said  the  Oakland  Enquirer  in  its  issue  of  December  30,  1913, 
"do  you  wonder  that  those  whom  the  vice  supporters  hired  to  cir- 
culate their  referendum  petitions,  in  1913,  are  said  to  have  re- 
sorted  to  wholesale  forgeries  and  perjuries?" 


CHAPTER  X. 
The   State   Non-Partisan    Bill. 

The  1915  Legislature  completed  the  work  begun  in 
1911  of  putting  township,  county  and  State  elections  on 
a   non-partisan  basis. 

The  trend  toward  non-partisanship  in  California  be- 
gan in  the  municipalities  even  before  the  State-wide 
campaign  against  the  old  Southern  Pacific  machine  was 
inaugurated. 80  The  City  of  Berkeley  was  the  first  to 
work  out  a  plan  by  which  all  municipal  officials  were 
elected  on  absolutely  non-partisan  basis,  and  by  majority 
vote. 

Under  the  Berkeley  system  two  elections  are  held, 
the  general   primary   and   the   final.     Any   citizen  may 

80  Under  partisan  rule  in  the  municipalities,  the  public  was 
powerless  to  correct  the  abuses  of  machine  government.  At  San 
Francisco  in  1905,  for  example,  Republicans  and  Democrats  united 
to  break  the  Schmitz-Ruef  hold  upon  the  city.  The  organizers  of 
the  movement  were  men  endeavoring  to  correct  abuses.  But  the 
party  organizations  eventually  controlled,  and  the  party  organiza- 
tions were  controlled  by  agents  of  public  utility  corporations.  The 
same  corporations  that  financed  the  Republican-Democratic  "re- 
form" movement,  gave  similar  assistance  to  the  Schmitz-Ruef  Union 
Labor  Party  group.  Thus,  the  corporations  financed  and  controlled 
both  groups.  The  public  lost,  no  matter  which  group  won.  In  the 
1909  election  at  San  Francisco,  in  order  to  defeat  at  the  Republican 
primaries  those  candidates  who  were  standing  for  law  enforcement, 
all  whom  the  public  service  corporations  and  underworld  could  con- 
trol, were  registered  as  Republicans.  For  the  1909  municipal  pri- 
maries at  San  Francisco  47,945  registered  as  Republicans.  This 
was  38,609  more  than  the  Republican  vote  for  Mayor  in  1907,  only 
two  years  before.  But  at  the  final  elections,  Crocker,  the  Repub- 
lican candidate  for  Mayor,  received  only  13,766  votes,  34.179  less 
than  the  registration  for  the  Republican  primaries.  Reputable 
citizens  would  of  course  register  as  members  of  that  party  which 
stood  for  the  principles  they  advocated.  But  the  disreputable  regis- 
tered where  they  could  be  used  to  the  best  advantage.  See  "  'The 
System,'  as  Uncovered  by  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution," 
Chapters  I  and   XXVII. 


no  The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill 

become  a  candidate  at  the  first  election,  by  conforming" 
to  certain  simple  requirements.81  If  at  the  first  election 
a  candidate  receive  a  majority  vote  he  is  declared 
elected.  If,  however,  no  candidate  for  a  given  office 
receive  a  majority,  then  the  candidates  equal  to  double 
the  number  to  be  elected  who  have  received  the  highest 
number  of  votes  become  candidates  at  the  final  election. 

Within  a  few  years  after  Berkeley  had  placed  her 
municipal  government  on  non-partisan  basis,  every  im- 
portant municipality  of  the  State,  with  the  exception  of 
San  Jose,  had  adopted  the  Berkeley  plan  or  some  modi- 
fication of  it.  County  and  State  officials  were,  however, 
still  elected  on  the  partisan  basis. 

At  the  1909  session  of  the  Legislature,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  put  the  election  of  judges  on  a  non- 
partisan basis.  A  bill  to  that  end  passed  the  Senate 
but  was  defeated  by  narrow  margin  in  the  Assembly. 
An  attempted  blow  at  partisan  State  elections  by  doing 
away  with  the  party  circle 82  on  the  Australian  ballot 
also  failed  in  the  Assembly,  after  having  been  given 
favorable  consideration  in  the  Senate.  A  constitutional 
amendment    to    give    counties    charter    government    and 


81  At  Berkeley  the  petition  of  nomination  required  of  a  candidate 
must  consist  of  not  less  than  twenty-five  Individual  certificates. 
Other  municipalities,  while  in  some  cases  modifying  this  require- 
ment, have,  in  the  main,  made  nomination  for  the  first  election 
quite  as  simple.  The  Berkeley  charter  was  ratified  by  the  1909 
Legislature.  There  was  some  opposition  that  session  to  so-called 
"freak  charters,"  that  is,  charters  providing:  for  the  Initiative, 
Referendum  and  Recall  and  reforms  in  the  methods  of  conducting 
elections.  (See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  pages 
194-5-6.)  But  no  California  Legislature  has  up  to  the  present  time 
refused  to  ratify  a  Municipal  Charter. 

82  For  account  of  the  corruption  of  the  Australian  Ballot  In 
California,  and  its  restoration,  see  "Story  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature of  1911,"  page  85. 


The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill  in 

incidentally  non-partisan  privileges  was  also  defeated  at 
the  1909  session. 

But  at  the  1911  session,  not  only  was  the  election 
of  judges  made  non-partisan,  but  the  election  of  school 
officials  as  well.  Not  only  was  the  party  circle  stricken 
from  the  Australian  ballot,  but  the  party  column  also. 
A  constitutional  provision  giving  charter  government  to 
counties  placed  non-partisan  election  of  county  officials 
within  the  reach  of  those  counties  which  might  elect  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity. 

At  the  1913  session,  the  election  laws  were  so  amended 
as  to  place  the  election  of  county  officials  on  non-par- 
tisan basis  practically  the  same  as  that  provided  under 
the  Berkeley  plan  of  electing  municipal  officials. 

This  plan  was  tried  out  with  evenly  good  results  at 
the  general  county  elections  of  1914.  Thus,  all  the  elec- 
tions in  political  subdivisions  of  the  State,  aside  from 
Congressional,  Legislative  and  Equalization  Districts, 
were,  in  1914,  on  non-partisan  basis.  The  same  was 
true  of  State  judicial  and  school  officials. 

Governor  Johnson,  during  the  1914  campaign,  stated 
in  every  important  speech  he  made,  that  in  the  event  of 
his  re-election  he  would  urge  upon  the  Legislature  that 
all  State  officers  be  elected  without  party  designation. 
The  1914  State  election,  as  has  already  been  shown,83 
demonstrated  that  the  State,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
is  already  on  non-partisan  basis. 

In  compliance  with  his  pledge  Governor  Johnson 
recommended  to  the  1915  Legislature  that  State  officials 

83  See  Chapters  I  and  II. 


112  The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill 

be  elected  without  party  designation  of  any  sort.84  To 
that  end  Young-  of  Berkeley  introduced  the  so-called 
Non-Partisan  Election  bill.85 

The  principal  opposition  to  this  measure  came  in  the 
Assembly.  There,  partisan  Republicans  and  partisan 
Democrats  united  with  the  two  Socialist  members  to 
bring  about  the  bill's  defeat.  Their  leaders  boasted 
they  controlled  more  than  forty-one  votes,  the  number 
necessary  to  prevent  its  passage  in  the  Lower  House. 
But  by  the  time  the  issue  came  to  try-out,  the  more  than 
forty-one  votes  boasted  had  dwindled  to  a  scant  thirty. 


84  "Most  earnestly  do  I  suggest  to  you,"  said  Governor  Johnson 
in  his  biennial  message  to  the  Legislature,  "that  our  State  officials 
be  elected  without  party  designation  of  any  sort.  The  advance  to 
non-partisanship  in  our  State  will  be  neither  an  extended  nor  a 
difficult  step.  The  political  units  that  compose  the  State  have 
all  adopted  non-partisanship  in  the  selection  of  their  officials.  The 
desideratum  of  a  government  is  efficiency — to  obtain  honest  and 
able  officials  devoted  exclusively  to  the  government.  To  govern 
well  is  to  govern  for  all,  not  for  a  part  or  a  class.  To  act  in  official 
capacity  should  be  to  act  solely  for  the  benefit  of  the  State,  and  that 
official  acts  best  who  forgets  every  other  consideration  but  the 
interest  of  the  State.  Long  ago  this  lesson  was  learned  by  cities. 
In  California,  as  in  many  States,  all  of  our  cities  elect  their  officials 
without  regard  to  party  affiliations  at  all,  and  without  party  desig- 
nation. Why?  Because  experience  taught  these  cities  that  thus 
they  obtained  better  officials  and  greater  efficiency.  It  is  within 
the  memory  of  all  of  us  that  these  cities  formerly  elected  their 
officials — city  clerks,  and  the  like, — because  of  their  partisan  affilia- 
tions. Progress  in  city  government  swept  from  existence  this  old 
system,  that  had  obtained  so  long,  and  its  destruction  was  necessary 
in  order  that  the  best  government  be  obtained.  Recently  the 
counties  of  the  State  adopted  the  plan  that  has  been  in  vogue  in 
cities,  and  elected  all  of  the  county  officials  without  party  desig- 
nation. Inquiry  among  the  counties  has  demonstrated  that  this 
method  has  met  with  almost  universal  approval,  and  it  is  hoped 
that  the  counties,  in  service,  will  be  benefited  just  as  the  cities,  in 
service,  have  been  benefited.  We  now  suggest  applying  the  prin- 
ciple to  the  State  as  well,  so  that  candidates  for  State  positions 
will  come  before  the  people  upon  what  they  themselves  are,  not 
upon  what  their  ancestors  were,  that  they  will  ask  the  suffrages 
of  the  electorate  upon  their  record  or  lack  of  record;  their  merits 
or  their  demerits,  rather  than  upon  the  blind  partisanship  of 
themselves  or  their  forefathers.  There  is  nothing  thus  presented  to 
you  that  seeks  to  destroy  or  even  to  affect  political  parties 
nationally." 

85  Assembly  Bill  715,  1915  series. 


The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill  113 

But  this  minority,  under  the  leadership  of  Milton 
Schmitt 86  of  San  Francisco,  and  with  the  counsel  and 
encouragement  of  Secretary  of  State  Jordan,  undertook 
by  blocking  tactics  to  delay  final  action  on  the  measure, 
having  in  view  always  the  possibility  that  so  long  as  the 
bill  was  not  actually  passed,  something  might  come  up 
to  prevent  its  passage. 

The  first  contest  between  the  two  groups  came  when 
the  bill  was  up  for  second  reading. 

The  State  constitution  provides  that  before  passage 
bills  must  be  read  three  times  in  each  House.  The  read- 
ing of  the  title  when  the  bill  is  introduced  is  by 
legislative  fiction  called  "first  reading."  The  "second 
reading"  is  a  form  only,  but  this  form  must  be  gone 
through  with  before  the  bill  can  be  put  to  third  reading 
and  final  passage. 

In  the  case  of  the  Non-Partisan  Election  bill,  if 
the  second  reading  were  completed  on  the  day  it  came 
up,  the  bill  at  its  next  hearing  would  be  on  third  read- 
ing and  final  passage.  Its  opponents  therefore  labored 
to  prevent  completion  of  second  reading. 

The  first  test  vote  between  the  two  factions  came  on 
an  attempt  to  adjourn  the  session  before  second  reading 
had  been  completed.     The  motion  to  adjourn  was  made 

86  Schmitt's  legislative  record,  although  he  has  not  served  so  long 
in  the  Legislature,  is  practically  the  same  as  that  of  Senator 
"Eddie"  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco.  Mr.  Schmitt  comes  from  the  same 
part  of  San  Francisco  from  which  Senator  Wolfe  was  last  year 
elected.  At  the  legislative  session  of  1909,  Assemblyman  Schmitt 
achieved  some  distinction  by  his  vigorous  opposition  to  the  Stanford 
Dry  Zone  bill,  which  banished  the  groggeries  from  the  edge  of  the 
Stanford  campus.  At  the  1909,  1911  and  1913  sessions,  Mr.  Schmitt 
was  the  leader  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  in  practically  all  the 
fights  against  the  so-called  Progressive  measures  that  have  become 
laws,  and  which  are  now  recognized  as  being  most  advantageous 
for  the  State.  Mr.  Schmitt,  in  opposing  the  Non-Partisan  Election 
law,  consistently  rounded  out  his  legislative  record. 


ii4  The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill 

by  Cary  of  Fresno.  It  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  28 
to  47.87  The  Assembly  then  settled  down  to  a  test  of 
endurance  between  the  two  factions.  When,  after  a 
time,  the  bill's  supporters  had  given  evidence  of  weari- 
ness, Rodgers  of  San  Francisco  made  a  second  motion 
to  adjourn.  This  came  within  one  vote  of  carrying,88 
a  perilously  close  margin.  But  the  motion  to  adjourn 
was  defeated.  The  supporters  of  the  measure  had  won 
for  the  second  time.  The  endurance  test  between  the 
two  factions  went  on. 

Schmitt,  leader  of  the  opposition,  announced  that  he 


87  The  vote  by  which  Cary's  motion  to  adjourn  was  defeated  was 
as   follows: 

For  adjournment,  which  would  have  delayed  passage  of  the  bill — 
Ashley,  Bartlett,  Benton,  Boyce,  Browne,  M.  B.;  Bruck,  Burke, 
Gary,  Chamberlin,  Downing,  Edwards,  R.  G. :  Hawson,  Kerr,  Long, 
Lostutter,  Lyon,  Manning,  McCray,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Quinn,  Ream, 
Rigdon,  Rodgers,  Rominger,  Schmitt,  Scott,  L.  D.,  and  Spengler — 28. 

Against  adjournment  and  to  prevent  delay  in  passage  of  the 
bill — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Avey,  Beck,  Boude,  Brown,  Henry  Ward; 
Byrnes,  Canepa,  Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard,  Dennett,  Ellis,  Encell, 
Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Jud- 
son,  Kennedy,  Kramer,  Marron,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.; 
McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Phelps,  Prendergast,  Ryan, 
Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Scott,  C.  E.;  Scott,  F.  C. ;  Sharkey,  Shartel, 
Sisson,  Widenmann,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M., 
and  Young — 47.     . 

88  The  vote  by  which  Rodgers's  motion  to  adjourn  was  defeated 
was  as  follows: 

For  adjournment,  which  would  have  delayed  passage  of  the 
bill — Ashley,  Bartlett,  Beck,  Benton,  Boyce,  Brown,  Henry  Ward; 
Browne,  M.  B. ;  Bruck,  Burke,  Cary,  Chamberlin,  Dennett,  Downing, 
Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Ellis,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Johnson,  Kerr,  Long, 
Lostutter,  Lyon,  Manning,  Marron,  McCray,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Quinn, 
Ream,  Rigdon,  Rodgers,  Rominger,  Salisbury,  Schmitt,  Scott,  C.  E.; 
Spengler  and  Wills— 37. 

Against  adjournment  and  to  prevent  delay  in  the  passage  of  the 
bill — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Avery,  Boude,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Chenoweth, 
Collins,  Conard,  Edwards,  L. ;  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart, 
Godsil,  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Judson,  Kennedy,  Kramer,  McDonald,  J.  J.; 
McDonald,  W.  A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Phelps, 
Prendergast,  Ryan,  Satterwhite.  Scott,  F.  C;  Scott,  L.  D.;  Sharkey, 
Shartel,  Sisson,  Widenmann,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.,  and  Wright, 
T.   M.— 38. 


The  State  N on-Partisan  Bill  115 

had  thirty-two  amendments  to  offer.     Two  things  soon 
became  apparent : 

(1)  That  Schmitt's  amendments  could  not  be  adopted. 

(2)  That  Schmitt  and  his  followers  would  demand 
a  roll-call  on  every  amendment.  As  there  are  80  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly  this  would  require  the  calling  of 
2560  names,  to  say  nothing  of  the  hours  of  debate  on 
the  various  amendments.  The  bill  could  not  go  to 
third  reading  until  the  amendments — should  Mr.  Schmitt 
insist  upon  offering  them — had  been  disposed  of.  The 
situation  was  admirably  calculated  to  wear  the  Assembly 
out,  and  compel  adjournment  without  the  bill  going  to 
third  reading. 

After  the  third  Schmitt  amendment  had  been  de- 
feated, Assemblyman  W.  A.  McDonald  suggested  that, 
as  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  was  unquestionably 
opposed  to  such  amendments,  the  Assembly  vote  on  all 
the  amendments  at  once. 

What  McDonald  suggested  had  been  actually  done 
in  that  same  Assembly  Chamber,  when,  in  1909,  machine- 
backed  amendments  to  the  Direct  Primary  bill  were 
under  consideration.89  It  was  not  right,  to  be  sure,  but 
opponents  of  such  measures  as  the  Direct  Primary  bill 
were  not  particularly  nice  about  such  matters. 

With  the  changed  order  in  the  State  Legislature, 
however,  there  was  no  danger  of  the  Speaker  following 
machine  precedent  and  compelling  action  on  all  of 
Schmitt's  amendments  on  one  vote.     Fish,  Speaker  pro 

89  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapter  XI. 
page  116. 


1 1 6  The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill 

tern.,  who  was  in  the  chair,  promptly  ruled  McDonald's 
suggestion  out  of  order. 

The  weary  consideration  of  Schmitt's  amendments 
which  could  not  be  adopted  continued. 

The  supporters  of  the  Young  bill,  in  safe  majority, 
finally  let  it  be  known  that  they  would  continue  in 
session  until  all  of  Mr.  Schmitt's  amendments  had  been 
considered  and  disposed  of.  This  placed  Schmitt  in  a 
most  embarrassing  position.  The  Legislature  was  sched- 
uled to  attend  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  the  follow- 
ing day.  The  time  which  consideration  of  his  amend- 
ments would  consume  would  take  all  night  and  a  good 
part  of  the  following  day.  The  Exposition  trip  would 
thus  be  spoiled  with  Milton  Schmitt  and  his  tactics  in 
opposition  to  the  Non-Partisan  Election  bill  responsible. 

And  Mr.  Schmitt,  after  three  of  his  thirty-two 
amendments  had  been  defeated,  craved  unanimous  con- 
sent to  withdraw,  without  prejudice,  those  which  had 
not  been  acted  upon. 

The  consent  was  given.  The  bill  went  to  third 
reading.  Mr.  Schmitt  and  his  following  had  in  the 
initial  skirmish  met  with  defeat,  and  the  proponents  of 
non-partisan  election  of  State  officials  with  complete 
success. 

When,  a  few  days  later,  the  bill  came  up  in  the 
Assembly  on  third  reading  the  opposition  again  resumed 
its  delaying  tactics.  Schmitt  alone  offered  no  less  than 
fifty-three  amendments,  on  many  of  which  roll-calls 
were  demanded.  Followers  of  Schmitt  tagged  along 
after   him   with   anywhere  from   one   to   half   a   dozen. 


The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill  117 

Few  of  these  amendments  were  worth  considering; 
many  were  trivial.90 

But  their  authors  did  succeed  in  keeping  the  Assem- 
bly in  session  from  10  o'clock  on  Wednesday  morning 
until  5  o'clock  of  Thursday  morning.  One  by  one  the 
delaying  amendments  were  defeated.  When  the  last  had 
been  disposed  of,  the  bill  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  48 
to  31,91  and  sent  to  the  Senate. 

Senator  Frank  H.  Benson,  of  Santa  Clara,  had 
charge    of   the    bill    in    the    Upper    House.      Curiously 

90  Section  8  of  the  bill  provided,  for  instance,  that  the  August 
primary  election  shall  be  held  IN  each  precinct.  Schmitt  offered  an 
amendment  to  make  it  read  FOR  each  precinct.  A  half  hour's  de- 
bate on  this  amendment,  during  which  Young  showed  Schmitt's 
contention  in  its  favor  to  be  without  foundation,  followed.  Roll- 
call  on  the  amendment  was  demanded.  It  was  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  26  to  51.  Note  those  who  voted  for  this  amendment.  The 
vote  was: 

Vote  for  amendment  and  to  delay  the  bill — Bartlett,  Beck,  Ben- 
ton, Boyce,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Burke,  Cary, 
Chamberlin,  Downing,  Edwards,  R.  G.;  Hawson,  Long,  Lostutter, 
Lyon,  Manning,  McCray,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Quinn,  Ream,  Rominger, 
Schmitt,   Scott,   C.   E.;    Scott,   L.   D.,   and   Spengler — 26. 

Vote  against  amendment  and  to  expedite  the  bills's  passage — 
Anderson,  Arnerich,  Ashley,  Avey,  Boude,  Bruck,  Byrnes,  Canepa, 
Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard,  Dennett,  Edwards,  L. ;  Ellis,  Encell, 
Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris,  Hayes,  D.  R.; 
Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Judson,  Kennodv,  Kerr,  Kramer,  Marron, 
McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek, 
Mouser,  Phelps,  Prendergast,  Rigdon,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite, 
Scott,  F.  C;  Sharkev,  Sisson,  Tabler,  Widenmann,  Wills,  Wishard, 
Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M.,  and  Young— 51. 

9i  The  vote  by  which  the  bill  passed  the  Assembly  was: 
For  the  Non-Partisan  Election  bill — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Avey, 
Boude,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard,  Dennett,  Ed- 
wards, L.  j  Ellis.  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil, 
Harris,  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Kramer,  Marron, 
McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek, 
Mouser,  Phelps,  Prendergast,  Rigdon,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satter- 
white, Scott,  F.  C.J  Sharkey,  Shartel,  Sisson,  Tabler,  Widenmann, 
Wills,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wrisht,  T.  M.,  and  Young— 48. 

Against  the  Non-Partisan  Election  bill — Ashley,  Bartlett,  Beck, 
Benton,  Boyce,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B.;  Bruck,  Burke, 
Cary,  Chamberlin,  Downing,  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Hawson,  Hayes.  D.  R.; 
Kerr,  Long,  Lostutter,  Lyon,  Manning,  McCray,  Pettis,  Phillips, 
Quinn,  Ream,  Rodgers,  Rominger,  Schmitt,  Scott,  C.  E. ;  Scott, 
L.  D.,  and  Spengler — 31. 


1 1 8  The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill 

enough,  Senator  Wolfe,  who  in  the  1909  Senate  led  the 
fight  against  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  led  the  opposition 
to  the  Non-Partisan  bill.  His  set  speech  invariably 
employed  on  such  occasions,  was  thundered  forth.  He 
devoted  himself  largely — as  he  had  done  in  his  speech 
in  opposition  to  the  Local  Option  law  in  1911 — to  ques- 
tioning the  constitutionality  92  of  the  proposed  measure. 

But  his  presentation  of  the  constitutional  feature 
carried  no  greater  conviction  than  it  had  in  his  argu- 
ment of  four  years  before  against  the  Local  Option  bill. 

Senator  Benson  required  but  a  few  words  to  meet 
the  lengthy  objections  of  the  measure's  opponents.  He 
summed  up  the  purpose  of  the  measure  in  the  fewest 
words,  when  he  stated  that  it  divorced  national  politics 
from  local  offices.  These  local  offices,  he  contended, 
have  nothing  to  do  with  national  politics. 

The  Senate  passed  the  bill  by  a  vote  of  30  to  9.93 


92  When  Wolfe,  in  his  fight  against  the  1911  Local  Option  bill 
was  beaten,  he  fell  back  upon  the  plea  that  the  measure  was  un- 
constitutional. 

Senator  Cutten  raised  a  laugh  by  asking  Wolfe  whether  he  de- 
sired a  more  stringent  Local  Option  bill. 

But  it  remained  for  Senator  Bstudillo  to  answer  Wolfe's  argu- 
ment most  effectively. 

"Senator  Wolfe,"  said  Estudillo,  "has  shown  a  strange  solicitude 
for  this  bill.  Why  does  Senator  Wolfe  have  such  concern  for  its 
constitutionality?  If  the  measure  is  unconstitutional,  it  will  not 
hurt  Senator  Wolfe's  friends.  The  Liquor  Interests  will  not  be 
hurt  if  the  bill  be  found  unconstitutional.  Why  this  concern  about 
its  constitutionality?  These  men  are  not  concerned  about  the  bill's 
constitutionality.  They  raised  the  point  of  constitutionality  to  de- 
feat the  bill." 

93  The  vote  by  which  the  non-Partisan  Election  bill  (Assembly 
Bill  715)  passed  the  Senate  was: 

For  the  non-Partisan  bill — Anderson,  Beban,  Benedict,  Benson, 
Blrdsall,  Breed,  Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Cohn, 
Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Jones,  Kehoe,  King,  Luce, 
Lyon,  Maddux,  Mott.  Rush,  Scott.  Slater,  Strobridge,  Thompson  and 
Tyrrell— 30. 

Against  the  non-Partisan  bill — Ballard,  Campbell,  Duncan,  Irwin, 
Owens,   Purkitt,  Shearer,  Stuckenbruck  and  Wolfe — 9. 


The  State  Non-Partisan  Bill  119 

Certain  necessary  amendments  had  been  adopted  in 
the  Senate.  The  bill  as  it  had  passed  the  Senate  could 
not  go  to  the  Governor  until  the  Assembly  had  con- 
curred in  these  amendments.  Milton  Schmitt,  and  other 
Assembly  opponents  of  the  bill,  started  a  ripple  of 
opposition  to  concurrence.  But  this  opposition  resulted 
in  nothing  more  serious  than  loss  of  two  hours  of  the 
Assembly's  time.  The  Assembly  concurred  in  all  the 
Senate  amendments.  The  vote  for  concurrence  was  in 
the  majority  of  cases  45  to  28.94 

The  change  from  partisan  to  non-partisan  State  elec- 
tion system,  necessitated  certain  amendments  to  the  codes 
to  make  them  conform  to  the  new  order.  This  was 
accomplished  in  a  series  of  measures,  all  of  which  were 
finally  passed,  and  signed  by  the  Governor. 

94  The  vote  by  which  the  Assembly  concurred  in  the  majority  of 
the  amendments  adopted  in  the  Senate  was: 

For  the  amendments  and  for  the  bill — Anderson,  Arnerich, 
Boude,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Chenoweth,  Collins.  Conard,  Dennett,  Ed- 
wards, L.,  Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil, 
Harris,  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Kramer,  Marron, 
McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek, 
Mouser,  Phelps,  Prendergast,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Scott, 
F.  C;  Sharkey,  Shartel,  Sisson,  Widenmann,  Wills,  Wishard, 
Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M.,  and  Young— 45. 

Against  the  amendments  and  against  the  bill — Ashley,  Bartlett, 
Beck,  Benton,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. :  Bruck,  Burke, 
Cary,  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Hawson.  Hayes,  D.  R.:  Kerr,  Long,  Lostutter, 
Lyon,  McCray,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Quinn,  Ream,  Rigdon,  Rodgers, 
Schmitt,  Scott,  C.  E.;  Scott,  L.  D.;  Spengler,  and  Tabler— 28. 


CHAPTER  XL 
Moral  Issues. 

During  the  days  of  Southern  Pacific  machine  domi- 
nation of  the  Legislature,  measures  which  adversely 
affected  vice  interests  were  held  up  in  committees  on 
Public  Morals.  When  the  hold  of  the  machine  was 
broken,  control  of  the  Public  Morals  Committees  was 
lost  to  the  gambling  element.  Exploiters  of  vice  there- 
upon raised  the  cry  of  "freak  measure,"  "intolerance" 
and  "unfair  methods,"  against  the  passage  of  measures 
affecting  underworld  interests.  The  fact  that  practical 
measures  against  gambling,  nickel-in-the-slot  machines, 
exploitation  of  prostitution,  and  other  underworld  ac- 
tivities could  no  longer  be  held  up  in  Public  Morals 
committees  was  taken  by  underworld  sympathizers  as 
evidence  sufficient  of  unfair  treatment.  Gradually,  un- 
der the  constant  cry  of  "freak  legislation,"  opinion 
gained  that  now  the  grip  of  the  underworld  upon  the 
government  of  the  State  had  been  broken,  the  Legis- 
lature must  have  care  lest  it  go  too  far  in  corrective 
legislation.  Such  argument  of  course  had  its  origin 
in  the  underworld.  By  1913  it  had  decided  influence 
upon  legislation.  It  did  not,  however,  get  very  far  at 
the  1911  session. 

Underworld  methods,  when  the  gambling  element 
controlled  Public  Morals  committees,  were  then  too 
fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  members  to  permit  of  the 
cry  of  "unfair  treatment"  from  that  source  having  much 


Moral  Issues  121 

effect.93  But  such  tactics  did  have  their  effect  at  the 
1913  session,  and  at  the  1915  session  they  were  em- 
ployed effectively  in  blocking  the  passage  of  several 
good  measures. 

Lobbyists  in  the  employ  of  liquor  interests,  for  ex- 
ample, were  very  successful  in  creating  an  atmosphere 
that  this  or  that  measure  affecting  liquor  or  gambling 
interests  was  unjust.  In  this  way,  opponents  of  such 
legislation  succeeded  in  dividing  the  members  who 
ordinarily  would  have  stood  together  on  moral  issues. 
Thus,  we  find  Senator  Luce,  chairman  of  the  Senate 
Public  Morals  Committee,  decidedly  opposed  to  the  Uni- 
versity Dry  Zone  bill,  but  in  favor  of  the  Local  Option 
bill  to  make  the  unit  of  prohibition  the  county  instead 
of  the  Supervisorial  district.  Senator  Chandler,  on  the 
other  hand,  quite  as  sincere  as  Senator  Luce,  opposed 
the  Local  Option  bill  as  most  unjust,  while  earnestly 
advocating  the  passage  of  the  University  Dry  Zone 
bill. 

Both  men  acted  in  good  faith  in  their  support  and 
in  their  opposition ;  both  were  for  any  measure  that 
would  break  down  the  corrupting  influence  of  saloon, 
gambling  establishment  and  brothel.  But  both  were 
influenced  by  the  atmosphere  that  had  been  created 
against  both  bills.  It  is  almost  amusing  to  note  that 
the  same  lobbyists  who  were  at   Sacramento  opposing 

95  Nevertheless,  the  gambling  element  succeeded  in  securing  at 
the  hands  of  the  1911  session  a  concession  by  which  the  anti-Race 
Track  Gambling  bill  was  amended  to  give  the  gamblers  fifteen 
days  additional  time  in  which  to  continue  their  operations  at 
Emeryville.  This  concession  was  granted  on  the  ground  that  it 
would  be  unfair  to  dealers  in  track  supplies  at  Emeryville  to  close 
down  their  market  without  giving  them  opportunity  to  dispose  of 
their  stocks.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911," 
pages  187-8. 


122  Moral  Issues 

the  Dry  Zone  bill  were  there  to  oppose  the  Local  Op- 
tion measure  also.  Incidentally,  Senator  Chandler's 
opposition  was  the  last  element  that  made  the  passage 
of  the  strengthened  Local  Option  bill  impractical,  while 
Senator  Luce's  known  disapproval  of  the  Dry  Zone  bill 
furnished  its  opponents  with  effective  arguments  against 
it,  and  weakened  the  position  of  its  supporters.  The 
two  bills  were  opposed  by  the  same  lobby.  Neither 
passed  the  Senate.  With  the  support  of  both  Senator 
Chandler  and  of  Senator  Luce  they  probably  would 
have  passed. 

Nor  were  these  the  only  measures  defeated  in  this 
way.  The  adverse  atmosphere  against  any  and  all  moral 
measures  brought  about  practical  deadlock  on  such  leg- 
islation. To  be  sure,  the  vice-exploiting  element  failed 
to  put  through  any  of  its  own  bills.  But  they  did  suc- 
ceed in  blocking  the  passage  of  several  very  good  ones. 

It  is  significant  that  of  the  nine  Senate  measures 
which  were  referred  to  the  Senate  Public  Morals  Com- 
mittee, but  one  became  a  law.9"  Of  the  twenty-five  As- 
sembly measures  referred  to  the  Assembly  Committee 
on  Public  Morals,  but  four  became  laws.  None  of  the 
four  passed  the  Assembly  until  they  had  been  amended 
into  what  was  practically  compromise  form.  But  two 
of  them,  even  as  amended,  started  legislation  in  the 
right  direction. 

Assembly  bill  562,  for  example,  gave  to  prosecutors 
of  certain  "blind  pigs"  advantage  which  one  may  well 
wonder  was  not  granted  long  ago.  This  act  makes  pos- 
se An  unimportant  measure.  Senate  Bill  588,  by  Campbell,  re- 
garding the  sale  of  intoxicants  to  habitual  drunkards. 


Moral  Issues  123 

session  of  a  Federal  license  to  sell  intoxicants  in  terri- 
tory within  "dry  zones,"  prima  facie  evidence  that 
intoxicants  are  being  sold  in  the  establishment  thus 
licensed.97 

It  is  notorious  that  hundreds  of  "blind  pigs"  operate 
in  "dry"  territory  under  Federal  license. 

While  local  district  attorneys  and  police  officials  may 
violate  their  oaths  of  office,  and  permit  infringement  of 
the  law,  proprietors  of  "blind  pigs"  take  no  chances  with 
Federal  authorities,  but  get  out  Federal  licenses.  For 
years,  attempts  had  been  made  to  have  such  licenses 
made  prima  facie  evidence  that  liquor  is  being  sold  in 
the  establishment  which  show  them.  But  until  the 
1915  session,  such  efforts  had  failed.  To  extend  the 
provisions  of  this  law  to  all  parts  of  the  State,  whether 
"dry"  or  "wet,"  would  have  discouraging  effect  on 
"blind  pig"  enterprises.  Such  extension  of  the  act,  now 
there  has  been  a  start,  may  eventually  be  made. 

Another  of  the  four  measures  was  also  directed 
against  "blind  pigs."  This  bill,  Assembly  bill  22,  was 
introduced  by  Wright  of  Santa  Clara.  It  declares  places 
where  intoxicants  are  illegally  sold  to  be  nuisances,  and 
provides  much  the  same  machinery  for  their  abatement 
as  that  of  the  Redlight  Abatement  act.  Before  the 
Wright  bill  was  enacted,  however,  the  opposition  forced 
several  amendments  into  it,  which  were  successfully  re- 
sisted in  the  case  of  the  Redlight  Abatement  act  when 
that  measure  was  before  the  Legislature  in  1913. 
Whether  these  changes  will  furnish  basis  for  attack  on 

97  The  important  votes  on  bills  considered  in  this  chapter  will 
be  found  in  the  Senate  and  Assembly  tables  on  Moral  issues  in 
the  Appendix. 


124  Moral  Issues 

the  system  of  abating  such  places  by  injunction  pro- 
ceedings remains  to  be  seen.98 

Browne  of  Tuolumne  attempted  to  apply  the  same 
method  of  abatement  to  establishments  where  illegal 
gambling  games  are  permitted.  This  measure  (Assem- 
bly bill  175)  came  out  of  the  Public  Morals  Committee 
with  recommendation  that  it  do  pass.  It  did  not,  how- 
ever, come  to  vote,  although  it  was  before  the  Assembly 
for  action  for  more  than  a  month. 

The  other  Assembly  bills  out  of  the  Assembly  Public 
Morals  Committee  which  became  laws,  were  Assembly 
bill  675,  prohibiting  the  distribution  of  intoxicants  on 
the  grounds  of  public  schools,"  and  Assembly  bill  1184 
strengthening  the  law  which  prohibits  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
cants to  Indians. 

The  most  important  Assembly  bill  recommended  for 
passage  by  the  Assembly  Public  Morals  Committee,  only 
to  be  denied  passage,  was  Assembly  bill  236  by  Phelps. 

The  aim  of  this  measure  was  to  outlaw  gambling, 

98  These  changes  provide  definitely  that: 

(1)  A  bond  shall  be  furnished  by  the  complainant  in  such 
abatement  proceedings. 

(2)  That  the  owner  must  be  notified  of  the  condition  com- 
plained of  before  action  for  the  abatement  of  the  nuisance  can  be 
brought. 

It  is  important  to  note  in  this  connection  that  similar  measures 
have  been  on  the  statute  books  of  other  States  for  more  than  a 
decade,  and  that,  although  these  measures  definitely  provide  in 
some  instances  that  no  bond  shall  be  required,  while  the  applica- 
tion for  a  temporary  injunction  is  deemed  sufficient  notice  to  the 
owner  of  the  property,  there  is  no  record  either  of  injury  done 
property  used  for  legitimate  purposes,  or  of  any  blackmail  at- 
tempted against  property  owners   through  such  proceedings. 

99  This  measure  met  with  vigorous  opposition.  One  of  the  ar- 
guments advanced  against  it  was  that  in  the  event  of  a  child  be- 
coming ill  on  the  school  ground,  and  needing  an  intoxicant,  the 
proposed  law  would  make  it  a  crime  to  give  the  liquor.  Unfortu- 
nately for  this  "argument,"  however,  those  who  advanced  it  were 
without  statistics  to  show  how  many  children  would,  during  the 
last  fifty  years,  have  suffered  seriously  from  failure  to  have  in- 
toxicants  administered    to   them   on   the   school   grounds. 


Moral  Issues  125 

incidentally  sweeping-  away  the  technicalities  by  means 
of  which  violators  of  anti-gambling  laws  escape  punish- 
ment. So  vigorous  was  the  opposition  to  the  bill,  how- 
ever, it  was  amended  to  exclude  from  its  provisions  the 
shaking  of  dice  for  drinks  or  for  tobacco.  That  such 
action  should  have  been  taken  by  the  Assembly  of 
the  State  of  California  may  astonish.  But  it  was  taken, 
nevertheless. 

Then  the  cry  was  raised  against  the  bill,  that  were 
it  to  become  a  law,  prizes  could  not  be  given  at  card 
parties.  Two  attempts  were  made,  one  by  Browne  of 
Tuolumne,  and  one  by  Phelps,  the  bill's  author,  to  have 
the  measure  amended  to  definitely  exclude  prizes  given 
at  card  parties  from  its  provisions.  But  the  very  per- 
sons who  ridiculed  the  bill  on  the  ground  that  "ladies 
would  be  unable  to  give  card  parties,"  were  it  to  become 
a  law,  opposed  these  amendments,  and  they  were  de- 
feated. The  bill  was  finally  defeated,  the  vote  being  16 
for  it,  to  40  against  it.100 

Another  measure  defeated  in  the  Assembly  after  it 
had  passed  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Morals, 
was  Assembly  bill  1518.  This  measure  prohibited  the 
sale  of  intoxicants  at  baseball  parks.  Inasmuch  as  the 
demoralizing  effect  of  bars  at  the  parks  is  generally 
recognized,  it  was  not  thought  that  even  the  liquor  in- 
terests would  oppose  this  measure.  But  it  was  opposed 
vigorously,  and  finally  defeated  by  a  vote  of  17  for  to  44 
against. 

Senate  bill  392,  which  did  not  go  to  the  Public 
Morals  Committee  of  the  Senate,  but  to  the  Committee 


100  For  vote   on   this  bill  see   table   of   Assembly  votes  on   Moral 
issues  in  the  Appendix. 


126  Moral  Issues 

on  Education,  is  classed  with  moral  issues.  This  meas- 
ure required  that  instruction  in  the  nature  of  alcohol 
and  other  narcotics  and  their  effects  upon  the  human 
system  as  determined  by  science,  must  be  given  in  the 
public  schools.  From  the  beginning  the  pro-liquor  ele- 
ment objected  to  the  word  "other,"  insisting  that  alcohol 
is  not  a  narcotic.  However,  the  bill  went  through  the 
Senate  without  the  word  "other"  being  stricken  out. 

But  in  the  Assembly  opposition  to  the  word  "other" 
continued.  Finally  Bruck  moved  to  amend  by  striking 
out  the  objectionable  word.  This  was  done.  The  bill 
was  further  amended  in  the  Assembly  by  striking  out 
the  provision  that  "the  same  tests  upon  the  nature  of 
alcohol  and  other  narcotics  and  their  effects  upon  the 
human  system  shall  be  required  for  promotion  and 
graduation  as  in  other  subjects." 

With  these  amendments  the  bill  passed. 

Measures  introduced  to  correct  the  evils  of  the  lot- 
tery-ticket selling,  met  with  the  fate  that  has  attended 
similar  measures  at  other  sessions. 

Even  the  time-honored  measure  making  it  a  mis- 
demeanor to  have  a  lottery  ticket  in  one's  possession, 
made  its  appearance.  This  measure — admirable  if  the 
People  of  the  State  of  California  wish  to  provide 
effective  means  for  enforcing  existing  laws  against  lot- 
teries— has  seen  many  committee  deaths.  Such  was 
the  fate  of  all  the  other  measures  for  the  suppression 
of  lotteries.  Not  one  of  them  was  permitted  to  come 
to  vote  in  either  House.  They  did  not  get  out  of  com- 
mittee until  too  late  in  the  session  for  action  to  be 
taken  upon  them. 


Moral  Issues  127 

The  spirit  of  political  San  Francisco  found  expres- 
sion in  Assembly  bill  224  introduced  by  Rodgers  of  that 
city.  The  bill  prohibited  the  selling  or  giving  away  or 
delivering  of  intoxicating  liquors  between  the  hours  of 
two  and  six  a.  m.  after  January  1,  1916.  The  purpose 
of  the  bill  was  to  permit  the  sale,  etc.,  of  intoxicants 
between  the  hours  of  two  and  six  a.  m.  during  the 
period  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition.  The  1913 
Legislature  passed  a  measure  preventing  such  sale  dur- 
ing the  hours  named.101  Mr.  Rodgers's  bill  would  have 
repealed  the  1913  law,  leaving  San  Francisco  free  to 
keep  her  liquor-selling  establishments  open  all  night 
until  January  1,  1916,  when  the  Panama-Pacific  Expo- 
sition would  be  over.  The  bill  did  not  come  to  vote  in 
either  House. 

The  anti-saloon  element  endeavored  to  amend  the 
Local  Option  law  to  make  the  unit  of  prohibition  the 
county  instead  of  the  supervisorial  district.  From  the 
beginning,  the  anti-saloon  people  have  contended  for 
the  county  unit,  only  accepting  the  supervisorial  dis- 
trict unit  as  a  compromise  when  it  became  apparent 
that  the  county  unit  could  not  be  secured.102 

The  liquor  interest  sent  lobbyists  to  Sacramento  to 
oppose  the  change. 

These  lobbyists  succeeded  in  creating  an  atmosphere 
of  distrust  of  the  measures  proposing  the  county  unit. 
The  whisper  was  carried  through  corridors  and  lobbies 

101  This  measure  was  passed  by  the  1913  Legislature  only  after 
hours  of  heated  debate.  In  its  original  form  it  provided  for  the 
closing  of  saloons  between  the  hours  of  1  and  5  a.  m.  The  saloon 
interests  finally  succeeded  in  making  the  closing  period  from  2 
to   6.     See   "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913,"   page   292. 

102  See  "Storv  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  Chapter 
XV,  page  190. 


128  Moral  Issues 

that  the  present  Local  Option  law  is  an  adjudicated  act, 
that  well-enough  had  better  be  left  alone,  that  the  public 
is  tired  of  agitation. 

At  a  hearing  before  the  Senate  Public  Morals  Com- 
mittee, supporters  of  the  county  unit  cited  numerous 
cases  to  show  the  advantage  of  the  county  unit  over  the 
supervisorial  district. 

G.  P.  Hurst  of  Woodland  showed  by  conditions  in 
Yolo  county  the  advantage  of  the  county  unit.  The 
entire  county  is  dry,  with  the  exception  of  Broderick 
and  territory  in  the  vicinity  of  Broderick.  In  six 
months'  time  not  a  prisoner  had  been  brought  to  the 
county  jail  except  from  Broderick.  Broderick,  how- 
ever, seems  to  have  kept  the  jail  well  populated.  Mr. 
Hurst  stated  that  Broderick  in  a  single  week  had  sent 
forty-two  prisoners  to  the  county  jail.  He  held  that 
this  one  community  should  not  be  permitted  to  saddle 
such  annoyance  and  expense  upon  an  entire  county. 
Under  the  county  unit,  all  saloons  would  be  ruled  out 
of  Yolo  county  including  those  at  Broderick. 

Senator  Duncan  and  other  residents  of  Butte  county 
showed  that  similar  conditions  exist  in  their  county. 
In  Chico  and  her  suburbs,  they  said,  is  a  population  of 
18,000.  Within  the  incorporated  limits  of  Chico  the 
population  is  about  3800.  The  suburbs  are  overwhelm- 
ingly "dry."  But  the  saloon  element  manages  to  con- 
trol the  majority  of  the  vote  of  Chico  city.  This  ele- 
ment will  not  permit  extension  of  the  city  limits,  for 
that  would  mean  the  voting  of  the  saloon  out  of  busi- 
ness. So  Chico  is  held  at  a  standstill  by  the  non- 
progressive, saloon  element,  and  in  the  center  of  this 


Moral  Issues  129 

"dry"  territory,  under  the  law  as  it  now  is,  the  little  nest 
of  Chico  saloons  finds  safe  resting. 

Similar  conditions  were  reported  from  a  long  list 
of  counties  which  were  demanding  the  strengthening  of 
the  present  Local  Option  law  by  the  substitution  of  the 
county  for  the  supervisoral-district  unit. 

But  the  opposition  lobby  succeeded  very  well  in  con- 
fusing the  issue.  As  has  been  seen,  Senator  Chandler 
became  convinced  that  the  suggested  change  was  un- 
timely or  worse.  A  doubt  as  to  the  merits  of  the  bill 
was  created  in  the  minds  of  other  members  who  ordi- 
narily would  support  such  a  measure.  The  liquor  lobby 
made  a  good  job  of  it.  An  atmosphere  decidedly  op- 
posed to  such  legislation  was  created.  As  a  consequence 
none  of  the  county-unit  bills  came  to  vote  in  either 
House. 

But  while  the  chances  for  passage  of  the  Local 
Option  bills  favored  by  the  anti-saloon  element  dimin- 
ished every  day,  the  regulatory  policy  of  the  California 
wine  interests  was  meeting  with  no  better  success.  In- 
deed, the  California  wine  interests  were  finding  them- 
selves as  powerless  against  the  dominating  influence  of 
the  whisky  wholesalers  as  was  the  anti-saloon  group. 

Curiously  enough,  the  wine  interests  had  announced 
soon  after  the  1914  November  election,  at  which  the 
Prohibition  amendment  had  been  defeated,  their  inten- 
tion to  lend  their  influence  to  strengthen  the  Local 
Option  law  by  making  the  county  the  unit  of  Prohibi- 
tion. 

During  the  Prohibition  campaign,  the  saloon,  brew- 
ery   and    distilled    liquor    interests,    in    effect    skulking 


130  Moral  Issues 

behind  a  bunch  of  grapes,  had  let  the  anti-Prohibition 
campaign  be  carried  on  in  the  name  of  the  California 
wine  interests.  The  wine  men  made  no  attempt  to 
defend  the  saloons,  but  used  as  their  chief  indictment 
against  Prohibition  the  argument  that  when  the  saloons 
become  unbearable,  The  People  have  their  relief  in 
Local  Option. 

The  wine  men's  announced  intention  to  work  for 
the  strengthening  of  the  Local  Option  law,  and  for 
practical  regulatory  provisions  for  licensed  territory,103 
was   consistent    with    this   argument. 

But  when  the  Legislature  opened,  the  wine  men 
were  not  prepared  to  carry  out  their  announced  plan. 

Instead  of  supporting  the  county  unit,  their  people 
opposed  it.     Instead  of  introducing  a  bill  for  practical 

103  The  program  announced  by  the  wine  interests  through  their 
attorney,  Mr.  Theodore  A.  Bell,  and  published  throughout  the 
State  was  as  follows: 

(1)  County  Option,  except  in  cities  having  5,000  or  more  in- 
habitants. 

(2)  In  licensed  territory,  not  more  than  one  saloon  for  each 
1,000  inhabitants,  or  major  fraction  thereof,  exclusive  of  table 
licenses   for  hotels  and   restaurants. 

(3)  Separate  licenses  to  sell  malt  and  fermented  liquors,  as 
distinguished  from  distilled  liquors. 

(4)  No  saloon  license  to  be  issued  to  an  individual,  but  only 
to  property,  the  owner  of  the  property,  under  heavy  bond,  to  be 
responsible   for  the   faithful   observance   of   the   law. 

(5)  Unlawful  for  any  wine-maker,  brewer,  distiller,  or  whole- 
saler to  have  any  pecuniary  interest  in  a  saloon. 

(6)  Midnight  and    Sunday   closing. 

(7)  Anti-treat  law. 

(8)  Drastic  laws  concerning  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor  to 
minors,  women,  or  to  persons  in  an  intoxicated  or  partially  in- 
toxicated condition. 

(9)  Such  limitations  and  restrictions  respecting  the  granting 
of  licenses  in  license  territory  as  to  forever  eliminate  dives  and 
deadfalls. 

(10)  When  charges  are  filed  before  any  magistrate  alleging  a 
violation  of  the  liquor  law,  a  jury  of  twelve  men  to  be  drawn 
from  the  body  of  the  county  to  try  the  case,  and,  in  the  event 
of  conviction,  the  license  to  be  suspended  until  the  judgment  shall 
be  reversed  or  become  final,  and  in  case  of  final  judgment  of 
conviction,  the  license  to  be  forever  revoked  and  no  other  license 
to  be   issued  in  its  stead. 


Moral  Issues  131 

regulation  of  the  saloons,  the  measure  which  they  stood 
sponsor  for,  in  the  words  of  the  Sacramento  Bee,  a 
publication  by  no  means  unfriendly  to  wine  interests, 
would,  had  it  become  a  law,  have  placed  "municipalities 
and  counties  at  the  mercy  of  saloons."  The  bill  was 
introduced  by  Assemblyman  Bismarck  Bruck  of  Napa, 
and  became  known  as  the  Bruck  bill. 

The  reason  for  the  wine  men's  change  was  common 
gossip  at  Sacramento  during  the  first  days  of  the 
session,  and  found  more  or  less  expression  in  the  public 
prints.  Very  frankly  the  wine  men  and  the  distillers 
differed  sharply  as  to  what  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
should  be,  the  dealers  in  the  stronger  drinks  holding 
out  against  the  proposed  saloon  regulation  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  be  but  an  educational  stepping- 
stone  toward  Prohibition.104  If  we  are  to  judge  by  the 
measure  eventually  introduced  as  the  wine  men's  bill, 

104  In  discussing  the  division  of  the  liquor  interest,  C.  K.  Mc- 
Clatchy,   Jr.,   in   The   Sacramento  Bee,   of  January   15,   1915,   said: 

"Then  there  is  opposition  on  the  number  of  saloons  to  be  al- 
lowed. The  wine-men  seem  determined  to  cut  themselves  loose 
from  the  whisky  dealers,  for  though  one  general  saloon  is  believed 
sufficient  for  every  thousand  population,  the  makers  of  lighter 
drinks  are  considering  advocating  two  extra  saloons  for  each  thou- 
sand population  in  which  nothing  but  beer  and  wine  shall  be  sold. 

"That,  of  course,  will  antagonize  the  whisky  men,  so  two  in- 
dependent forces  will  be  at  work  on  the  Legislature,  the  wine  and 
beer  men  for  strict  regulation  and  the  whisky  men  for  no  regu- 
lation at  all. 

"Some  of  the  dealers  in  the  stronger  drinks  have  an  argument 
that  is  stumping  some  of  their  brethren  who  want  strict  regula- 
tion of  saloons.  Taking  Los  Angeles,  Seattle  and  Portland  as 
cities  in  which  there  was  strict  saloon  regulation,  it  is  pointed 
out  that  these   were   the  ones   that   went  strongly   for   prohibition. 

"Taking  San  Francisco  and  Sacramento  as  examples,  with  no 
saloon  regulation  to  speak  of,  with  dives  and  low  saloons  to  give 
a  horrible  example,  these  towns  went  against  prohibition  by  two 
and  three  to  one. 

"The  conclusion  the  whisky  men  are  trying  to  force  upon  the 
makers  of  lighter  drinks  therefore  is  that  saloon  regulation  is  but 
an  educational  stepping-stone  to  prohibition,  and  that  if  a  town 
once  has  good  regulation  it  quickly  desires  to  step  further  as  to 
prohibition.  The  whisky  men  are  decided  therefore  to  play  the 
game  for  all  or  nothing." 


132  Moral  Issues 

Assembly  Bill  874,  the  opinion  of  the  makers  of  the 
stronger  drink  prevailed. 

So  sharp  was  the  criticism  of  this  measure,  that 
after  the  Constitutional  recess,  the  wine  men  abandoned 
it  and  Mr.  Bruck  introduced  a  substitute  bill.105 

This  second  measure  closely  followed  the  plan  of 
the  first,  and  proved  no  more  popular.  The  anti-saloon 
element  opposed  it,  while  representatives  of  saloon- 
keepers, bartenders,  and  others  interested  on  the  liquor 
side  of  it,  appeared  before  legislative  committees  to 
voice  their  opposition.  The  measure  was  not  pressed. 
It  was  permitted  to  remain  in  committee,  although  for 
weeks  the  anti-saloon  element  watched  it  closely. 

And  then,  of  a  sudden,  the  anti-saloon  element  dis- 
covered that  while  their  attention  had  been  centered 
upon  the  Bruck  bill,  the  liquor  interests  had  been  quietly 
working  in  the  Assembly  for  the  adoption  of  an  amend- 
ment to  the  State  Constitution.  This  amendment  had 
also  been  introduced  by  Mr.  Bruck.  Furthermore,  the 
anti-liquor  forces  discovered  that  the  liquor  interests 
had  practically  enough  votes  lined  up  to  force  adoption 
of  the  Bruck  amendment.  The  adoption  of  the  amend- 
ment by  the  Legislature  and  its  ratification  by  the 
electors  would,  its  opponents  contended,  have  entrenched 
the  liquor  interests  in  California  beyond  power  of  dis- 
lodgment. 

105  Assembly  bill  1520,   introduced  by  Bruck  of  Sonoma. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment. 

The  measure  for  which  the  liquor  interests  at  the 
1915  session  bent  all  their  energies  was  the  so-called 
Bismarck  Bruck  Constitutional  amendment.106  For  a 
considerable  time  there  were  very  good  prospects  that 
it  would  be  adopted. 

The  amendment  provided  that  "no  law  or  consti- 
tutional amendment  which  shall  damage,  injure  or  des- 
troy the  value  of  or  prevent  the  use  of  any  vineyard, 
wine  cellar,  hop  field,  brewery,  distillery  or  other  prop- 
erty used  in  producing,  growing  or  raising  grapes, 
or  hops,  or  in  manufacturing  or  producing  wine,  beer, 
malt  or  distilled  liquors,  existing  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  or  adoption  of  such  law  or  constitutional 
amendment,  shall  take  effect  until  just  compensation 
shall  have  been  first  made  to  or  paid  into  court  for  the 
owner,  which  compensation  shall  be  ascertained  by  a 
jury,  unless  a  jury  is  waived,  as  in  other  civil  cases,  in 
a  court  of  record,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  prescribed 
by  law." 

In  the  several  debates  on  the  amendment,  the  fact 
was  brought  out  that  its  ratification  would  not  only 
make  it  practically  impossible  to  proceed  against 
saloons,107  but  would  make  California  the  dumping-place 

106  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No.   40,   1915  series. 

107  On  this  point,  Rev.  D.  M.  Gandier  in  a  statement  regarding 
the  measure  said:  "If  the  amendment  were  adopted,  California 
would  be  tied  hand  and  foot  by  the  liquor  interests.     No  Constitu- 


134         Bismarck  B ruck's  Amendment 

for  distilleries,  breweries  and  saloons  which  are  being 
driven  out  of  neighboring  States. 

The  saloon,  distillery,  and  brewery  interests,  follow- 
ing the  policy  which  they  have  adopted  for  their  Cali- 
fornia campaigns,  acted  in  the  name  of  California  vine- 
yardists  and  hop-growers.  So  far  as  possible,  the  large 
beneficiaries  under  the  amendment,  saloons,  distilleries, 
and  breweries,  were  kept  in  the  background.  The 
distillers,  brewers,  saloonkeepers,  spoke  in  terms  of 
grapes  and  vineyards. 

In  the  beginning,  little  publicity  was  given  the 
amendment.  Instead  of  going  to  the  Public  Morals 
Committee,  it  had  gone  to  the  Committee  on  Consti- 
tutional Amendments.  The  anti-saloon  element  was 
watching  the  measures  sent  to  the  Public  Morals  Com- 
mittee. There  was  no  practical  way  for  the  anti-saloon 
people — unless  they  had  a  man  on  the  ground  to  devote 


tional  amendment,  State  law,  or  local  ordinance,  which  in  any  way 
restricted  the  liquor  traffic,  could  then  take  effect  until  every  in- 
dividual, whose  business  might  be  directly  nor  indirectly  affected 
by  it,  had  been  brought  into  court  and  the  amount  of  damages,  if 
any,  which  he  was  to  sustain,  had  been  fixed  by  a  jury.  You  can 
readily  see  that  this  would  be  an  almost  endless  process.  Every 
time  any  one  was  prosecuted  for  violating  the  liquor  law,  there 
would  be  a  new  claimant  coming  forward  asking  for  damages.  His 
claim  would  render  the  law  or  ordinance  inoperative  until  such 
claim  had  been  settled  in  court,  and  so  enforcement  of  law  against 
the  sale  of  liquor  would  be  impossible.  No  more  vicious  interfer- 
ence with  the  right  of  the  people  to  restrain  or  prohibit  the  liquor 
traffic  could  be  devised  than  is  proposed  in  this  amendment.  Then 
may  I  ask  why  the  liquor  interests  should  be  singled  out  for  such 
special  privileges?  If  the  power  of  the  people  to  protect  them- 
selves against  injury  by  the  liquor  traffic  is  to  be  taken  away,  why 
not  take  away  their  power  to  protect  themselves  against  injury  by 
the  sale  of  opium  and  other  drugs,  or  by  the  sale  of  lottery  tick- 
ets, roulette  wheels,  etc.?  The  courts  are  now  open  to  liquor 
dealers  on  the  same  terms  as  to  other  people.  If  they  can  show 
that  any  legitimate  business  is  hurt  by  any  law  passed  they  can 
get  damages.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  law  merely  interferes  with 
profits  made  by  maintaining  nuisances,  or  by  working  injury  to 
the  public,  damages  cannot  and  should  not  be  obtained.  Liquor 
dealers  now  have  the  same  rights  in  court  as  other  citizens  and 
they  should   not   have  any  special   privileges." 


Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment  135 

all  his  time  to  the  work — to  keep  track  on  the  hundreds 
of  bills  which  were  before  the  many  committees. 

The  Bismarck  Bruck  amendment  went  through  the 
Committee  on  Constitutional  Amendments  without  much 
attention  being  paid  to  it.  Before  the  anti-saloon  people 
awoke  to  its  importance,  it  was  on  the  floor  of  the 
Assembly    ready    for    adoption. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  vigilance  of  Dr.  D.  M. 
Gandier,  who  had  been  absent  from  the  State  during 
the  first  period  of  the  session,  the  amendment  would 
probably  have  slipped  through  the  Assembly  and  per- 
haps the  Senate.  On  his  return  to  California,  Dr.  Gan- 
dier uncovered  the  amendment,  and  warned  the  anti- 
saloon  element  of  the  Legislature  against  it.  But  it 
was  found  that  the  measure's  proponents  had  more 
than  fifty  votes  pledged  to  its  support.  Fifty-four  were 
enough  for  its  adoption. 

When,  therefore,  the  measure  came  up  in  the  Assem- 
bly, its  proponents  were  thoroughly  organized  with 
definite  plan  to  force  it  through.  At  one  time  it  is 
claimed  they  had  fifty-three  members  prepared  to  vote 
for  it.  They  needed  one  more  only.  Had  it  not  been 
for  the  agitation  which  had  been  started  against  the 
measure,  this  needed  vote  would  unquestionably  have 
been  secured.  But,  while  the  opposition  to  the  amend- 
ment was  not  organized,  individual  members  were 
prepared  to  oppose  it  vigorously. 

The  ratification  of  the  amendment,  they  pointed 
out,  would  be  invitation  to  the  brewery  and  distillery 
interests  which  are  being  driven  out  of  neighboring 
States  to  come  to  California  and  wait  for  the  State  to 


136  Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment 

compensate  them  for  any  losses  they  may  sustain.  The 
proprietors  of  those  breweries  and  distilleries  which 
contemplate  moving  into  this  State,  it  was  shown,  will 
come  to  California  with  full  knowledge  of  the  agitation 
here  against  their  business,  and  the  probability  that 
within  a  few  years  California  will  have  adopted  the 
same  liquor  policy  as  have  the  -States  from  which  the 
undesired  newcomers  are  moving. 

A  specific  example  was  given  of  a  certain  brewery 
which  was  about  to  be  driven  out  of  Washington  State, 
and  which  was  re-establishing  its  business  at  San  Fran- 
cisco at  a  reported  cost  of  over  $1,000,000.  Under  the 
Bruck  amendment,  the  opponents  of  the  measure  point- 
ed out,  if  the  State  were  so  much  as  to  impose  a  tax 
that  could  be  construed  as  damaging  this  refugee  from 
the  North,  the  brewery  company  could  collect  com- 
pensation from  the  State. 

The  further  point  was  made  that  were  California 
to  adopt  such  an  amendment,  the  State  would  be  placed 
in  the  position  of  a  community  advertising  that  it  main- 
tains a  free  dinner-table  for  tramps.  Such  an  an- 
nouncement would  bring  tramps  from  all  parts  of  the 
country.  The  adoption  of  the  Bruck  amendment  would 
bring  into  California  breweries  and  distilleries  from 
neighboring  States  which  have  either  declared  against 
their  continued  operation,  or — as  is  probably  the  case  of 
California — are  about  to  declare  against  such  operation. 

Brown  of  San  Mateo  showed : 

( 1 )  That  the  proposed  amendment  in  effect  an- 
nulled the  decisions  in  which  the  liquor  business  has 
been  denied   recognition. 


Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment  137 

(2)  That  it  put  a  premium  on  the  business.  Vine- 
yardists  are  at  present  very  wisely  planting  fruit  trees 
between  their  wine  grapes.  The  adoption  of  the  Bruck 
amendment  would  be  encouragement  for  adventurers 
with  a  chance  of  collecting  future  damages  from  the 
State  to  plant  unjustified  acreage  to  wine  vines. 

(3)  That  it  gives  a  vested  interest  in  the  liquor 
business  which  could  not  in  future  be  annulled  even  by 
constitutional  amendment. 

(4)  That  it  tied  the  hands  of  the  people  of  Cali- 
fornia and  of  the  Legislature. 

"Why  should  you,"  demanded  Brown,  "adopt  an 
amendment  to  give  such  advantages  to  the  liquor  or  to 
any  other  business?" 

Assemblyman  Bruck,  author  of  the  amendment,  in 
effect  admitted  all  that  Brown  had  said  when  he  ex- 
plained that  its  proponents  were  "merely  trying  to  pro- 
tect an  industry  that  has  been  in  jeopardy  many  years." 

In  a  word,  the  effect  of  the  ratification  of  the  Bruck 
amendment  would  have  been  to  take  the  liquor  business 
out  of  jeopardy. 

Milton  Schmitt  of  San  Francisco  joined  with  Bruck 
in  leadership  of  the  fight  to  secure  the  measure's 
adoption.  Their  evident  plan  was  to  force  an  imme- 
diate vote.  But  here  they  failed.  At  no  time  could 
they  muster  the  necessary  fifty-four  votes,  and  when 
the  vote  was  finally  taken  after  a  day  of  debate,  they 
could  register  for  the  amendment  only  fifty-one,  three 
less  than  the  number  required  for  its  adoption.108 

108  The  recorded  vote  on  the  Bruck  amendment  was  as  follows: 
(Johnson    changed    his    vote    from    aye    to   no.) 

For   the   Bruck  amendment — Anderson,   Arnerich,   Ashley,    Beck, 


138         Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment 

The  vote  was,  however,  by  no  means  final.  Assem- 
blyman George  H.  Johnson  of  San  Bernardino  changed 
his  vote  from  aye  to  no  and  kept  the  issue  alive  under  a 
motion  to  reconsider. 

Both  sides  during  the  next  few  days  exerted  them- 
selves to  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  doubtful  members. 
One  member,  at  least,  who  had  voted  against  the 
amendment,  was  threatened  with  loss  of  position  unless 
he  changed  his  attitude  and  voted  for  it. 

Another  member  who  opposed  the  amendment  was 
urged  as  reason  why  he  should  change  his  vote,  "not  to 
forget  that  the  Prohibitionists  almost  defeated  you." 

It  seems  that  this  particular  member  was  elected 
over  his  "wet"  opponent  by  less  than  ten  votes.  There 
were  polled  for  the  Prohibition  candidate  for  the  As- 
sembly in  his  district  something  more  than  500.  Had 
there  been  no  Prohibition  candidate  in  the  field,  these 
500  votes  would  have  gone  to  the  member  whose  con- 
stituents were  urging  him  to  vote  for  the  Bruck  amend- 
ment. 

And  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  had  the  Prohibition 
candidate  in  this  instance  received  a  dozen  more  "dry" 
votes  than  he  did,  the  "wet"  candidate  would  have  been 
elected  to  the  Legislature.     His  "wet"  vote  would  have 


Benton,  Boude,  Boyce,  Bruck,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chenoweth, 
Collins,  Conard,  Edwards,  L.;  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Ellis,  Encell,  Fer- 
guson, Gebhart.  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R.; 
Hayes,  J.  J.;  Kennedy,  Kerr,  Lyon,  Manning,  Marron,  McCray, 
McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  Meek,  Mouser,  Pettis,  Phillips, 
Prendergast,  Ream,  Rigdon,  Rodgers,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Schmitt, 
Scott.    C.   E. ;    Sharkey,   Shartel,    Tabler  and  Widenmann — 50. 

Against  the  Bruck  amendment — Avey,  Bartlett,  Brown,  Henry 
Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Burke,  Chamberlin,  Dennett,  Downing.  Fish, 
Johnson,  Judson,  Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter,  McKnight,  Phelps, 
Quinn,  Rominger,  Sntterwhite,  Scott,  F.  C. ;  Scott,  L.  D. ;  Sisson, 
Spengler,  Wills.  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M.,  and 
Young— 28. 


Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment  139 

been  cast  for  the  Brack  amendment,  and  the  amendment 
would  have  been  forced  through  the  Assembly. 

Then,  in  the  event  of  the  Bruck  amendment  going 
through  the  Senate,  and  being  ratified  by  the  people  at 
the  polls,  Prohibition  in  the  State  of  California  would 
have  been  made  impractical  until  the  whole  Nation  had 
gone  dry. 

The  supporters  of  the  Bruck  amendment  did  not 
confine  themselves  to  bankers  and  business  men  in 
securing  outside  support  for  the  amendment's  adoption. 
The  pressure  of  labor  organizations  was  employed  as 
well.  Assemblyman  Downing,  the  Socialist  member,  for 
example,  received  a  telegram  from  the  Los  Angeles 
Building  Trades  Council  and  the  Los  Angeles  Labor 
Council  urging  that  he  vote  for  the  amendment.  Down- 
ing had  on  the  first  roll  call  voted  against  it.  In  spite 
of  protests  of  labor  organizations,  he  continued  to  vote 
against  it.109 

Each  side  suffered  losses,  but  the  opposition  more 
than  made  up  what  it  had  lost.  When  the  bill  came  up 
for  reconsideration,  only  forty-five  110  voted  to  give  it  a 

109  Thus  organized  labor  and  organized  capital,  if  we  are  to 
judge  of  the  expression  of  their  leaders  and  organizations,  were 
together  in  support  of  this  admittedly  vicious  measure.  This  cu- 
rious alliance  is  not  infrequent.  They  were  together,  for  exam- 
ple, in  opposition  to  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution.  (See 
"The  System  as  Uncovered  by  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecu- 
tion.") But  this  expression  of  organized  capital  and  organized  labor 
in  opposition  to  that  which  is  wholesome,  and  in  favor  of  that 
which  is  bad,  cannot  be  held  to  reflect  the  attitude  either  of  the 
individual  capitalist  or  the  laborer.  The  self-seeking  few  of  each 
group  control  and  compel  policies  which  are  neither  expressive  of 
the  attitude  of  the  group  for  which  they  speak,  or  for  the  group's 
best  interests.  The  allied  support  of  leaders  of  both  groups  of 
such  measures  as  the  Bruck  amendment,  and  opposition  of  such 
movements  as  the   San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution,   is   significant. 

110  The  vote  to  reconsider  the  Bruck  amendment  was  as  follows: 
For  reconsideration  of  the   Bruck  amendment — Anderson,    Arne- 

rich,  Ashley,  Beck,  Benton,  Boude.  Boyce,  Bruck,  Burke,  Byrnes, 
Canepa,    Chamberlin,    Chenoweth,    Collins,    Edwards.    R.    G.;    Ellis, 


140         Bismarck  B ruck's  Amendment 

second  hearing,  only  four  more,  than  the  majority  of 
forty-one  required. 

The  good  faith  of  those  who  contended  that  the 
amendment  was  for  the  protection  of  vineyardists  alone 
was  put  to  the  test  by  Assemblyman  L.  D.  Scott  of 
Fresno. 

Mr.  Scott  offered  an  amendment  restricting  the 
provisions  of  the  measure  to  vineyards  devoted  to 
the  growing  of  wine  grapes,  and  providing  that  the 
losses  which  grape  growers  may  sustain  under  any 
future  dry  legislation  shall  be  determined  by  the  State 
Railroad  Commission. 

Those  who  were  supporting  the  Bruck  measure  voted 
against  the  Scott  proposal  and  succeeded  in  defeating 
it. 

When  the  measure  came  up  for  final  passage,  As- 
semblyman Downing  offered  an  amendment  to  provide 
that  property  injured  by  adverse  anti-liquor  legislation 
might  be  purchased  by  the  political  subdivision  in  which 
it  is  located  "at  the  last  assessed  valuation  fixed  for 
purpose  of  taxation."  This  was  voted  down  by  a  vote 
of  1 1  to  47.111 


Encell,  Ferguson,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ; 
Hayes,  J.  J.;  Kennedy,  Kerr,  Long,  Manning,  Marron,  McCray, 
McDonald,  W.  A.;  McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Phillips,  Prendergast, 
Rodgers,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Sehmitt,  Scott,  C.  E. ;  Scott, 
F.  C;   Sharkey  and  Widenmann — 45. 

Against  reconsideration  of  the  Bruck  amendment — Bartlett, 
Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Dennett,  Downing,  Fish, 
Harris,  Judson,  Kramer,  Lostutter,  McKnight,  Phelps,  Rigdon,  Ro- 
minger,  Scott,  L.  D. ;  Sisson,  Spengler,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright,  H. 
W.;   Wright,   T.  M.,  and  Young— 22. 

111  The  vote  on  Downing's  first  proposed  amendment  was  as 
follows: 

For  the  amendment — Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Burke, 
Downing,  Gelder,  Hawson,  Lostutter,  Phelps,  Scott,  L.  D. ;  Spengler 
and  Young — 11. 

Against  the  amendment — Anderson,  Bartlett,  Beck,  Benton, 
Boude,    Boyce,    Bruck,    Byrnes,    Canepa,    Cary,    Chamberlin,    Cheno- 


Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment  141 

Downing  offered  a  second  amendment  which  pro- 
vided that  all  workingmen  thrown  out  of  employment 
as  a  result  of  any  measure  affecting  the  liquor  business 
should  be  paid  at  the  rate  of  $3  a  day  for  one  year. 

This  sort  of  "compensation"  did  not  appeal  very 
strongly  to  those  who  were  insisting  upon  "compensa- 
tion" for  brewer,  distiller  and  winemaker.  But  Down- 
ing contended  that  the  employee  was  as  much  to  be 
considered  as  the  employer. 

"If  we  are  to  consider  legislation  of  this  kind  at 
all,"  he  insisted,  "I  submit  to  you  that  the  workman 
who  loses  his  job,  which  is  his  all,  is  entitled  to  as  much 
consideration  as  the  employer." 

Unfortunately,  the  roll  was  not  called  on  this  second 
Downing  amendment.  It  was  defeated  with  an  over- 
whelming chorus  of  "noes." 

When  put  to  final  passage,  the  Bruck  amendment  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  45  to  30,112  a  two-thirds  vote  of 
fifty-four  being  required  for  its  adoption.113 

weth,  Collins,  Edwards,  L. ;  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Ferguson,  Fish,  Geb- 
hart,  Godsil,  Hayes,  D.  R.;  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Kennedy,  Kerr, 
Kramer,  Long,  Manning,  McCray,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W. 
A.;  McKnight,  Meek.  Mouser,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Ream,  Rigdon,  Ryan, 
Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Schmitt,  Scott.  C.  E.;  Sharkey,  Tabler, 
Widenmann,   Wishard   and   Wright,   H.   W. — 47. 

112  The  vote  by  which  the  Bruck  amendment  was  finally  re- 
jected was  as  follows: 

For  the  Bruck  amendment — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Ashley,  Beck. 
Benton,  Boude,  Boyce,  Bruck,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chamberlin, 
Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard,  Edwards,  L. ;  Edwards,  R.  G.;  Ellis, 
Encell,  Ferguson,  Gebhart,  Godsil,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Johnson, 
Kennedy,  Kerr,  Lyon,  Manning,  McCray,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  Mc- 
Donald, W.  A.;  Mouser,  Pettis,  Phillips,  Ream,  Rodgers,  Ryan, 
Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Schmitt,  Scott,  C.  E. ;  Sharkey,  Tabler  and 
Widenmann — 45. 

Against  the  Bruck  amendment— Avey,  Bartlett,  Brown,  Henry 
Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Burke,  Downing,  Fish,  Gelder,  Harris,  Jud- 
son,  Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter,  McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek,  Phelps. 
Quinn,  Rigdon,  Rominger,  Scott,  F.  C;  Scott,  L.  D.;  Shartel,  Sis- 
son,  Spengler,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M.,  and 
Young— 30. 

113  Since  their  defeat  in  the  Legislature,  proponents  of  the 
Bruck  amendment  have  been  considering  plans  for  putting  such   a 


142  Bismarck  Bruck's  Amendment 

measure  on  the  ballot  by  the  Initiative.  Of  this  proposed  move, 
the  Sacramento  Bee   (issue  of  July  3,   1915)  says: 

"The  Board  of  Directors  of  the  California  Grape  Protective  As- 
sociation definitely  decided  at  a  recent  meeting  to  place  an  Initia- 
tive Constitutional  Amendment  upon  the  ballot,  providing  for  com- 
pensation for  grape-growers,  wine-makers,  brewers,  hop-growers 
and  all  others  affected  by  the  passage  of  any  law  or  Constitu- 
tional Amendment  in  any  way  damaging  their  business  or  reducing 
the  value  of  their  plants  or  property. 

"Such  a  Constitutional  provision  would  be  unjust.  It  is  gen- 
erally recognized  that  The  People  have  the  social  right  as  well 
as  the  legal  power  to  regulate,  restrict  or  prohibit,  without  com- 
pensation,  all   forms  of  the  manufacture   and   sale  of  alcohol. 

"But  the  proposed  amendment  would  tie  the  hands  of  State  and 
local  government  against  correction  of  any  and  all  abuses  per- 
taining to  the  traffic  in  alcoholic  products.  For  no  matter  how 
bad  conditions  might  become,  no  regulatory  nor  prohibitory  law 
could  be  passed  that  did  not  first  compensate  the  doer  of  evil. 

"The  brewers,  winemen  and  grape-growers  had  much  better 
place  their  faith  in  the  sense  of  justice  of  The  People  of  Califor- 
nia than  in  a  Constitutional  amendment  of  this  sort,  the  attempt 
to   carry  which   would  but  stir  up  a  wave  of   resentment. 

"The  time  and  effort  would  be  far  better  expended  in  a  cam- 
paign of  education,  with  statistics  and  arguments,  in  an  endeavor 
to  persuade  the  voters  of  California  against  the  injustice,  unwis- 
dom and  fanaticism  of  prohibition." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill. 

The  fight  to  make  the  present  University  "Dry  Zone" 
law  general,  which  was  won  in  the  1913  Senate  only  to 
be  lost  in  the  1913  Assembly  by  narrow  margin,  was 
resumed  at   the   1915   session.114 

For  more  than  forty  years,  the  State  University  has 
enjoyed  the  benefit  of  an  area  extending  for  one  mile 
on  each  side  of  the  campus  in  which  no  saloon  is 
tolerated.  In  1909,  a  similar  "dry  zone,"  but  larger  by 
a  half  mile  each  way,  was  provided  for  Stanford  Uni- 
versity.115 The  extra  half  mile  was  added  for  the 
frankly  expressed  purpose  of  reaching  certain  saloons 
at  Menlo  Park,  largely  patronized  by  Stanford  students. 
The  voters  at  Menlo  Park  were  overwhelmingly  against 
closing  these  saloons.  The  only  way  to  close  them  was 
by  State  enactment.  They  were,  against  the  wishes  of 
a  large  majority  of  the  electors  of  San  Mateo  county, 
closed  by  State  enactment. 

At  the  1913  session,  Senator  Edwin  M.  Butler  of 
Los  Angeles  introduced  the  so-called  "University  Dry 
Zone  bill."  This  measure  extended  the  provisions  of 
the   almost   half -century-old   law    to   all    institutions   of 

114  For  the  extraordinary  opposition  given  the  Butler  Dry  Zone 
bill  at  the  1913  session,  see  "The  Story  of  the  California  Legisla- 
ture of  1913,"  Chapter  XXIII. 

115  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913,"  page  296, 
for  account  of  conditions  which  caused  the  Legislature  to  establish 
the  Stanford  University  "Dry  Zone." 


i44  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

collegiate  rank.  This  included  St.  Ignatius  College  at 
San  Francisco,  The  University  of  Southern  California, 
Santa  Clara  University,  and  the  University  at  Redlands. 
The  bill  was  finally  amended,  however,  to  exclude 
St.  Ignatius  from  its  provisions  as  the  San  Francisco 
members  were  fanatically  opposed  to  any  interference 
with  San  Francisco  saloons. 

But  in  the  Assembly,  opponents  of  the  measure,  with 
the  practically  solid  support  of  the  San  Francisco  mem- 
bers in  that  body,  attacked  the  bill  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  unfair  that  San  Francisco  should  be  excluded 
from  its  provisions.  These  opponents  did  not  offer  to 
amend  the  bill  to  include  San  Francisco.  But  they  used 
the  pretext  that  San  Francisco  was  not  included  to  de- 
feat the  bill.  The  measure  was,  largely  with  San  Fran- 
cisco votes,  defeated  by  narrow  margin. 

The  contest  over  this  1913  bill  incidentally  brought 
out  information  of  conditions  in  the  vicinity  of  some 
of  the  State  Normal  schools,  notably  that  at  Chico. 
The  opinion  grew  that  all  students  attending  school 
away  from  home  should  be  accorded  the  same  protection 
as  is  given  the  students  at  the  State  University  and 
Stanford.116  When,  therefore,  the  1915  bill  was  drawn, 
State  Normal  schools  were  included  with  universities 
in  its  provisions.  The  measure  was  introduced  by  Sena- 
tor Butler,  the  author  of  the  1913  bill. 

The  liquor  interests  fought  this  measure  in  connec- 
tion with  their  campaign  against  the  proposed  amend- 
ment of  the  Local  Option  bill  to  make  the  county  the 
unit  of  Prohibition  instead  of  the  supervisorial  district. 


Lie  See   footnote    309,    page   309,    "Story   of   the   California   Legis- 
lature of  1913." 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  145. 

The  same  lobby  appeared  at  Sacramento  against  both 
bills. 

At  the  hearings  on  the  Butler  bill,  representatives 
from  the  various  communities  affected  appeared  to  urge 
its  passage.  These  representatives  went  to  Sacramento 
at  their  own  expense,  in  the  interest  of  their  home  com- 
munities, and  of  the  young  men  and  women  who  are 
obliged  to  leave  the  influence  of  the  home  to  complete 
their  education. 

The  opposition  to  the  bill  was  carried  on  in  the  name 
of  the  Allied  Industries  of  California.  The  same  or- 
ganization directed  the  fight  against  the  Local  Option 
bill.  The  Allied  Industries'  paid  representative  in  both 
cases  was  Mr.   Max   Kuhl  of  San  Francisco. 

Among  those  who  appeared  at  the  principal  com- 
mittee hearings  to  speak  in  favor  of  the  bill  was  Pro- 
fessor R.  L.  Green  of  Stanford. 

Professor  Green  had  just  been  appointed  by  Gov- 
ernor Johnson  to  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  San 
Jose  State  Normal  School.  He  appeared  on  behalf  of 
the  San  Jose  school. 

"The  State  has  an  interest  in  these  schools,"  said 
Professor  Green.  "Coming  from  Stanford  as  I  do, 
and  knowing  the  benefits  that  have  resulted  from  the 
'dry  zone'  around  that  institution,  I  feel  that  the  pro- 
tection which  is  enjoyed  by  Stanford  and  the  State 
University  should  be  extended  to  the  State  Normal 
schools." 

Rev.  H.  H.  McQuilkin  of  San  Jose  brought  the 
message  of  President  M.  A.  Dailey  of  the  San  Jose 
State  Normal  school  endorsing  and  urging  the  passage 
of  the  measure. 


146  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

Dr.  McQuilkin  showed  that  San  Jose  Normal 
students  on  the  way  to  the  postoffice,  station,  or  business 
districts,  were  compelled  to  pass  saloons  and  the  groups 
of  loafers  who  cluster  thick  about  saloon  doors. 

"I  believe,"  said  Dr.  McQuilkin,  "that  the  State 
owes  it  to  these  students  and  to  their  parents  to  protect 
them  against  such  experiences.  I  believe  it  to  be  clearly 
within  the  province  of  the  State  to  protect  its  own 
institution." 

Mrs.  H.  C.  Compton  and  Samuel  J.  Munn  of  Chico 
told  of  the  extraordinary  conditions  at  Chico,  where  a 
nest  of  saloons  within  the  city  limits  is  able  to  defy  a 
district  which  has  voted  against  the  saloons  by  over 
1000  majority.  They  declared  the  influence  of  these 
saloons  upon  the  youth  of  Chico  to  be  bad,  and  their 
effect  upon  the  Normal  School  anything  but  beneficial. 

E.  C.  Eaton  of  Santa  Clara  protested  against  the 
State  discriminating  against  Santa  Clara,  in  providing 
a  "dry  zone"  for  the  University  of  California  and  for 
Stanford,  while  making  no  such  beneficial  provisions 
for  the  University  at  Santa  Clara. 

Mr.  Kuhl's  argument  against  the  bill  was  based 
on  the  premise  that  it  is  wrong  to  assume  that  the  liquor 
traffic  is  ipso  facto  destructive  of  our  youth.  The  Butler 
bill,  he  claimed,  "almost  means  Prohibition  for  Cali- 
fornia." He  held  that  "this  is  no  place  to  argue  for  a 
bill  which  is  materially  the  same  as  that  which  The 
People  have  voted  down."  In  this  Mr.  Kuhl  was  re- 
ferring to  the  Prohibition  measure  defeated  at  the  1914 
election. 

D.  M.  Gandier  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  showed 
that  during  the  1914  campaign  the  saloon  men  had  hid 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  147 

behind  the  grape  men,  that  the  defeat  of  the  Prohibition 
measure  was  not  on  the  saloon  issue  but  on  the  vineyard 
issue.  Far  from  meaning  "almost  Prohibition  for  Cali- 
fornia," Dr.  Gandier  demonstrated  that  outside  San 
Francisco,  should  the  Butler  bill  become  a  law,  not 
more  than  125  saloons  would  be  closed.  At  San  Fran- 
cisco, about  500  saloons,  according  to  Mr.  Kuhl,  would 
be  closed.  But  as  1700  would  remain,  with  an  addi- 
tional 2200  places  licensed  to  sell  liquor  in  sealed  pack- 
ages, it  was  quite  evident  that  San  Francisco  would  not 
suffer  for  want  of  opportunity  to  purchase  intoxicants. 

Mr.  Gandier  contended  further  that  the  establish- 
ment of  "dry  zones"  around  schools  attended  by  non- 
resident students  is  the  well-settled  policy  of  the  State. 
He  showed  the  distinction  between  schools  attended  by 
non-resident  students  and  schools  which  are  attended  by 
resident  students  who  enjoy  the  protection  of  home  sur- 
roundings and  influences. 

With  the  exception  of  Senator  Flaherty  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, the  committee  was  unanimous  in  sending  the  bill 
back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do 
pass. 

When  the  bill  came  up  in  the  Senate  for  final  pas- 
sage, Senator  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco  led  the  fight 
against  it.  Wolfe's  speech  was  not  new.  It  was  the 
same  sort  of  speech  he  had  made  against  the  1909  Local 
Option  bill,  and  two  years  later  against  the  1911  Local 
Option  bill. 

Wolfe's  criticism  of  those  who  were  supporting  the 
Butler  bill  was,  too,  practically  the  same  criticism  he  had 
in  1909  and  1911,  directed  against  the  supporters  of  the 
Local  Option  bill.     The  replies  made  in  1909  and  1911 


[48  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

to  his  attacks  upon  the  supporters  of  Local  Option  could 
very  well  have  been  made  to  his  attacks  in  1915  upon 
the  supporters  of  the  Butler  bill.117 

Wolfe  had  one  argument,  however,  which  he  had 
not  had  four  years  before.  He  made  much  of  the  fact 
that  Prohibition  at  the  1914  election  had  suffered  over- 
whelming defeat.  He  argued  that  since  The  People 
had  rejected  Prohibition,  it  was  unreasonable  for  the 
Legislature  to  impose  Prohibition  upon  any  community. 
But  unfortunately  for  Wolfe's  argument,  the  saloon  at 
the  gates  of  the  State's  schools,  and  not  Prohibition, 
was  under  discussion. 

Senator  Wolfe  held  that  the  saloonkeepers  of  San 
Francisco  are  high-type  gentlemen,  good  and  useful 
citizens. 

"San  Francisco,"  he  insisted,  "is  taking  care  of  this 
question  herself.  San  Francisco  is  not  asking  this 
Legislature  to  regulate  its  morals.  No  other  city  of  its 
size  in  the  whole  world  is  as  moral  as  is  San  Francisco." 

Wolfe  stated  that  provisions  are  made  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  young  women  at  San  Francisco  against 
scoundrels  who  seek  them  out,  by  placing  policemen 
at  the  school  doors.  The  danger  against  which  this  pro- 
vision is  made,  he  held,  is  not  the  danger  of  the  saloon. 

"Let  us,"  said  Wolfe  in  conclusion,  "have  peace  and 
rest  on  this  question  of  liquor." 

117  After  Wolfe's  speech  against  the  1911  Local  Option  bill. 
Senator  Estudillo  of  Riverside  replied  in  part  as  follows:  "Some 
reverend  gentlemen  have  been  accused  of  lobbying  for  this  bill. 
These  men  are  citizens  of  this  State.  They  have  as  much  right 
to  speak  for  this  bill  as  representatives  of  the  Royal  Arch  or  the 
liquor  interests  have  to  speak  against  it.  When  the  measure  was 
pending  before  the  Assembly  I  saw  representatives  of  the  liquor 
interests  prancing  about  the  floor  against  it."  See  "Story  of  the 
California  Legislature  of  1911,"  pages  223-224. 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  149 

Senator  John  N.  Anderson  replied  most  effectively 
to   Wolfe. 

Anderson  denied  that  the  saloon  can  be  defended 
on  any  ground. 

"When  Senator  Wolfe,"  said  Anderson,  "states 
that  the  saloons  of  San  Francisco  are  respectable,  he 
states  what  is  absolutely  not  true.  As  'for  peace  and 
rest  on  the  saloon  question,'  we  shall  not  have  peace 
socially  or  morally  until  we  get  rid  of  the  accursed 
saloon.  As  for  providing  police  protection  for  the 
young  women  who  attend  these  schools  against  worse 
things  than  the  saloon,  let  me  tell  you  that  every  mis- 
creant who  hangs  around  the  schools  to  waylay  young 
women  comes  out  of  the  saloons.  In  this  'Dry  Zone' 
measure  we  are  endeavoring  to  protect  our  boys  and 
girls  by  keeping  the  saloon  and  allied  evils  as  far  from 
them  as  possible.  Our  boys  and  girls  are  entitled  to 
greater  consideration  than  are  the  beneficiaries  of  the 
infamous   saloon  business." 

Senator  Anderson  contended  that  it  would  be  well 
for  the  young  women  attending  the  State  Normal 
school  at  San  Francisco  if  the  saloons,  which  are  the 
congregating  places  of  miscreants  who  make  necessary 
the  placing  of  policemen  at  the  doors  of  the  schools 
for  the  protection  of  the  women  students,  could  be  kept 
a  mile  distant  from  the  school. 

Another  point  made  by  the  opponents  of  the  bill  was 
that  its  passage  was  unnecessary,  for  the  reason  that 
the  public  has  its  remedy  in  the  Local  Option  act. 

This  is  not  true  at  all  of  San  Francisco. 

The  San  Francisco  delegation  in  the   1911   Legisla- 


150  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

ture  was  powerful  enough  to  have  San  Francisco  ex- 
cluded from  the  provisions  of  Local  Option  law.  The 
act  does  not  apply  to  San  Francisco  at  all. 

Nor  does  it  apply  to  any  university  or  normal  school 
zone.  Were  the  "mile  zone"  around  Stanford  or  Santa 
Clara  University,  or  the  Chico  State  Normal  school,  or 
the  University  of  California  a  unit  of  prohibition,  the 
people  of  those  zones  would  vote  out  the  saloons  over- 
whelmingly. But  the  people  are  not  given  that  oppor- 
tunity. Under  the  Supervisorial-unit  plan  of  Local 
Option,  a  bad  spot  is  left  in  the  mile  zone  of  each 
institution — Menlo  at  Stanford,  Santa  Clara  town  at 
Santa  Clara  University,  Oakland  in  the  case  of  the 
State  University,  and  the  small  area  of  the  City  of 
Chico  in  the  case  of  the  Chico  State  Normal.  Each 
of  these  bad  spots,  beyond  the  reach  of  the  present 
Local  Option  law,  is,  where  the  State  does  not  inter- 
fere, able  to  maintain  a  nest  of  saloons  to  the  detriment 
of  the  school,  and  of  the  community.  The  State  has 
interfered  in  the  case  of  the  State  University,  of  Stan- 
ford, and  of  the  University  Farm  at  Davis.  The  pro- 
ponents of  the  Butler  bill  asked  that  the  State  interfere 
in  the  case  of  other  institutions  attended  by  students 
from  a  distance. 

And  the  fact  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  the 
very  forces  which  in  1911  prevented  the  county-unit  of 
prohibition  being  incorporated  in  the  Local  Option  law, 
and  appeared  at  the  1915  session  to  prevent  the  county 
unit  being  substituted  for  the  Supervisorial  district 
unit,  were  the  most  persistent  in  insisting  that  the 
public  has  its  remedy  in  Local  Option.  With  the 
county   unit,   no    saloon    could   exist    within    twenty-five 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  151 

miles  of  the  Chico  State  Normal  school,  nor  within 
three  miles  of  the  University  of  Santa  Clara. 

The  California  Legislature  is  ever  considerate  of 
San  Francisco  vice,  which  means  that  the  Legislature 
is  ever  considerate  of  the  politically-important  exploiters 
who  fatten  off  San  Francisco  vice. 

The  argument  against  the  "Dry  Zone"  bill  which 
seemed  to  appeal  to  some  of  the  members  strongly  was 
that  it  would  be  wrong  to  close  the  saloons  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  San  Francisco  State  Normal  school  by 
act  of  the  Legislature.  Senator  Luce  of  San  Diego, 
without  admitting  such  objection  to  have  merits,  showed 
that  it  could  be  met  by  excluding  San  Francisco  from 
the  provisions  of  the  bill. 

Senator  Luce  pointed  out  that  whatever  might  be 
said  of  the  situation  at  San  Francisco,  the  situation  at 
Chico    and   at    Santa    Clara 118    warranted    the    passage 

us  Practically  the  same  position  taken  by  Senator  Luce  as  re- 
gards the  University  of  Santa  Clara,  and  the  Chico  State  Normal 
School,  was  taken  by  Lieutenant-Governor  Eshleman.  In  a  letter 
to  Hon.  A.  J.  Wallace  giving  his  reasons  for  voting  against  the 
Butler  "Dry  Zone"  bill,  Governor  Eshleman  says:  "I  believe  by 
the  most  arbitrary  'dry'  or  the  most  arbitrary  'wet'  it  will  be 
conceded  that  it  is  not  fair  in  the  interest  of  either  contender  to 
fix  a  general  rule  for  all  communities  and  then  depart  from  and 
violate  this  rule  as  regards  certain  communities  either  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  'wets'  or  the  interest  of  the  'drys.'  If,  however, 
there  are  special  circumstances  which  apply  to  a  particular  com- 
munity and  thereby  take  this  community  out  of  the  general  rule, 
then  the  State  is  justified  in  applying  a  different  rule  to  such 
community  than  that  which  applies  to  all  other  communities.  But 
in  the  absence  of  such  special  conditions,  the  State  breaks  its 
faith  when  it  applies  one  rule  to  one  community  and  a  different 
rule  to  another.  I  conceded  without  argument  that  the  presence 
of  the  University  of  California  with  the  peculiar  conditions  there 
existing,  puts  the  territory  around  that  institution  in  a  different 
condition  than  that  which  generally  prevails.  I  also  concede  the 
same  to  be  true  as  regards  Stanford  University.  I  likewise  con- 
cede that  the  same  was  shown  to  be  true  as  regards  Santa  Clara 
College,  and  I  also  concede  that  there  was  some  argument  to  the 
same  effect  as  regards  Chico,  although  not  nearly  so  persuasive. 
However,  not  one  fact  was  adduced  nor  one  argument  presented 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  which  led  me  to  believe  that  the  pres- 
ence of  the  normal  school   in  the  City  of  San  Jose  and  in  the  City 


1^2  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

of  such  a  bill.  He  accordingly  offered  amendments  to 
limit  the  provisions  of  the  measure  to  cities  of  20,000 
inhabitants  or  less.  This  would  have  excluded  San 
Francisco    and    San    Jose. 

And  here  was  the  bad  faith  of  the  San  Francisco 
delegation  shown.  So  confident  were  the  bill's  op- 
ponents that  they  could  defeat  the  measure  if  San 
Francisco  were  not  excluded  from  its  provisions,  that 
the  entire  San  Francisco  delegation,  and  most  of  those 
who  were  standing  with  the  San  Francisco  delegation, 
voted  against  the  amendment.  The  amendment  was 
defeated  with  their  votes.119 


of  San  Francisco  produced  one  single  additional  argument  against 
the  saloon  that  would  not  have  existed  had  the  normal  school  not 
been  there.  In  short,  not  one  of  the  proponents  of  this  bill  sub- 
mitted a  single  valid  argument  in  favor  of  closing  the  saloons  of 
San  Jose  and  the  saloons  of  San  Francisco  that  was  not  directed 
with  equal  force  against  all  saloons.  They  did  not  make  of  these 
communities  a  special  class  which  warranted  the  Legislature  in 
departing  from  the  uniform  rule  that  it  had  applied.  In  other 
words,  it  was  sought  by  this  bill  to  close  up  the  saloons  of  San 
Francisco  and  San  Jose  against  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the 
electors  of  those  communities  and  without  any  special  reason  for 
overriding  the  will  of  such  electors  such  as  exists  in  the  City  of 
Berkeley,  the  City  of  Palo  Alto  and  the  City  of  Santa  Clara." 

Governor  Eshleman,  it  may  be  added,  was  not  in  the  Senate 
Chamber  during  the  entire  discussion  on  the  Dry  Zone  bill.  It  is 
unfortunate  that  he  did  not  hear  Senator  Anderson's  reply  to 
Wolfe,  and  the  statement  of  conditions  in  the  vicinity  of  the  State 
Normal  School  at  San  Jose. 

119  The  Fresno  Republican  in  its  issue  of  April  1,  in  comment- 
ing upon  this  vote  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation,  said: 

"But  the  attitude  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  to  the  Senate 
in  fighting  the  amendment  which  would  have  exempted  San  Fran- 
cisco and  Los  Angeles  from  the  operation  of  the  bill  showed  plainly 
that  they  were  acting  not  in  the  interest  either  of  morality  or  of 
their  city,  but  as  representatives  of  the  liquor  business  of  the 
State.  The  objection  to  the  Mile  Limit  bill,  as  a  State  measure, 
lies  in  its  application  to  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles,  and  not 
to  Fresno,  Chico,  San  Diego  and  the  smaller  cities  that  have  nor- 
mal schools.  San  Jose  lies  above  the  proposed  limit,  20,000.  There 
are  no  saloons  within  a  mile  of  the  Fresno  Normal  School  and  are 
not  likely  to  be  under  local  option.  The  other  normal  schools  of 
the  State  might  be  proper  subjects  for  the  operation  of  this  meas- 
ure, if  local  officials  take  such  little  interest  in  the  schools  that 
they  permit   saloons   to  operate  near  the  grounds. 

"But  when  it  seemed  possible  to  have  the  bill  amended  to 
exempt   all   cities   above   20,000   from   its  operation,   the   San   Fran- 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  153 

There  was  some  tendency  to  criticize  Senator  Butler 
and  four  other  of  the  bill's  supporters  for  voting  against 
the  amendment.  But  Senator  Butler's  vote  is  readily 
accounted  for. 

Senator  Butler,  who  during  his  service  in  the  Legis- 
lature has  sponsored  many  good  bills,  has  thereby  made 
himself  particularly  objectionable  to  the  San  Francisco 
underworld.  Threats  had  been  made  against  Senator 
Butler's  life,  if  the  "Dry  Zone"  bill  became  a  law  with 
its  provisions  applying  to  San  Francisco.120     The  effect 

cisco  delegates  voted  solidly  against  it.  They  were  not  interested 
in  saving  the  saloons  in  the  business  district  of  San  Francisco  that 
happen  to  lie  within  a  mile  of  the  San  Francisco  Normal.  They 
were  afraid  that  with  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  excepted, 
the  bill  might  pass." 

120  The  following,  one  of  several  of  like  import,  is  a  letter  re- 
ceived by  Senator  Butler  two  days  before  the  Dry  Zone  bill  came 
up  for  final  passage: 

"San  Francisco,   Cal.,   March   27,    1915. 
"Mr.   Butler,   Sacramento,   Cal. 

"Dear  Sir: — I  have  been  a  resident  of  San  Francisco  almost  40 
years.  I  am  now  over  63  years  old,  and  have  a  wife  and  7  chil- 
dren, the  oldest  being  19  and  the  youngest  2.  I  have  been  a  sa- 
loon keeper  for  over  37  years.  I  never  was  arrested  in  my  life, 
and  I  never  had  a  disturbance  in  my  place  of  business.  I  have 
been  a  good  citizen,  have  paid  my  taxes  and  raised  and  educated 
my  family.  I  have  served  on  jury  duty  many  times,  and  have 
been  a  good  and  faithful  citizen  in  all  respects. 

"But  I  have  been  driven  almost  insane  by  the  constant  agita- 
tion of  you  politicians  on  the  liquor  question,  and  I  tell  you  that 
if  your  bill  should  go  through  it  would  make  a  beggar  of  me  in 
my  old  age,  with  a  growing  family  on  my  hands,  and  I  will  not 
stand  it.  And  I  tell  you  if  you  do  this  wicked  thing  I  will  take 
the  law  in  my  own  hands  and  I  will  kill  you  as  sure  as  the  sun 
rises.  You  are  driving  me  crazy  but  not  too  crazy  to  get  you  and 
I  don't  care  what  becomes  of  me  after  that.  I  have  never  broken 
a  law  of  our  country  (I  am  an  American)  in  my  life.  But  if  the 
State  of  California  will  not  protect  me  against  any  such  skunks 
as  you,  I  repeat  I  will  take  the  law  into  my  own  hands.  I've 
stood  all  I'm  going  to  stand.  My  father  fought  for  the  Union  and 
was  twice  wounded,  and  I  fought  the  Apache  Indians  over  40  yrs. 
ago  when  I  was  in  the  U.  S.  army,  from  which  I  have  honorable 
discharge,  and  I  will  allow  no  such  skunk  as  you  to  rob  me  and 
my  large  family  of  our  living  and  turn  us  all  over  to  beggary.  I 
repeat  it — don't  mistake  me — if  you  do,  I  will  kill  you  as  dead  as 
door  nails,  for  you  are  slow  but  sure  driving  me  insane.  I  am  an 
old  man  and  it's  too  late  to  begin  over  again  with  7  children  on 
my  hands — oldest  boy  only  12. 

"Yours  truly, 
"A  saloon  keeper  and  a  Good  American  Citizen." 


154  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

of  these  threats  was  to  make  Senator  Butler  insistent 
that  the  bill  apply  to  San  Francisco.  He  accordingly 
voted  against  the  Luce  amendment,  as  did  four  other 
supporters — Anderson,  Brown,  Kehoe  and  Purkitt. 
But  these  five  could  not  have  defeated  the  amendment 
had  the  San  Francisco  delegation  voted  for  it. 

The  Luce  amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of 
15  to  23.121  Had  the  seven  San  Francisco  members 
voted  for  it,  the  vote  would  have  been  22  for  the 
amendment  to  16  against.  The  Dry  Zone  bill  went 
to  final  roll  call  with  San  Francisco  included  within  its 
provisions,  because  the  San  Francisco  delegation  had 
voted  against  excluding  San  Francisco.  Furthermore, 
the  Senators  from  outside  San  Francisco  who  usually 
voted  with  the  San  Francisco  group  on  moral  issues, 
voted  with   San   Francisco  on  this  issue  also. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  Luce  amendment,  considera- 
tion of  the  original  bill  was  resumed.  Senators  Butler, 
Brown,  Jones  and  Benson  spoke  strongly  in  its  favor. 
Jones  in  particular  showed  the  bad  faith  of  the  San 
Francisco  delegation  in  voting  down  the  Luce  amend- 
ment. 

"If  they  thought  the  bill  could  carry,"  he  said,  "they 
would  be  making  most  frantic  efforts  to  secure  the 
adoption  of  amendments  excluding  San  Francisco 
from  its  provisions." 

121  The  vote  by  which  the  Luce  amendment  to  the  Butler  Dry 
Zone  bill  was  defeated  was: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Benedict,  Benson,  Breed,  Camp- 
bell, Carr,  Cogswell,  Duncan,  Flint,  Irwin,  Jones,  King,  Luce,  Mad- 
dux,  Mott  and  Thompson — 15. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Anderson,  Ballard,  Beban, 
Birdsall,  Brown,  Butler,  Colin,  Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Gerdes, 
Hans,  Kehoe,  Lyon,  Owens,  Purkitt,  Scott,  Shearer,  Slater,  Stro- 
bridge,    Stuckenbruck,    Tyrrell    and    Wolfe — 23. 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  155 

Senator  Jones  told  of  the  conditions  at  Stanford 
University  before  the  Stanford  "dry  zone"  was  estab- 
lished, and  cited  cases  of  brilliant  students  who  had  been 
ruined  by  the  drink  habit  acquired  during  their  student 
days. 

"Few  of  us,"  said  Senator  Jones,  "would  vote  to  do 
away  with  the  'dry  zone'  at  Stanford  and  that  at  our 
State   University." 

Senator  Jones  also  told  of  conversations  he  had 
had  with  the  authorities  of  Santa  Clara  University, 
and  of  the  close  watch  the  University  people  are 
obliged  to  keep  over  the  saloons  which  are  situated 
less  than  eighty  feet  from  the  gates  of  the  Santa  Clara 
campus.122 

When  the  measure  came  to  final  vote,  the  Senate 
divided  upon  it  evenly,  nineteen  voting  for  and  nineteen 
against  it.123  Twenty-one  votes  were  required  for  the 
bill's  passage.  Two  members,  Rush  and  Strobridge, 
were  absent.  If  one  of  them  voted  for  the  bill  and 
one  against,  the  vote  would  be  a  tie.     This  would  give 

122  The  opponents  of  the  Butler  "Dry  Zone"  bill  intimated  con- 
stantly that  the  authorities  of  Santa  Clara  University  were  op- 
posed to  its  passage.  No  baser  libel  was  ever  uttered.  "When 
we  consider,"  says  the  San  Francisco  Monitor,  official  organ  of 
the  Archdiocese  of  San  Francisco,  in  its  issue  for  November  30, 
1912,  "how  saloons  flock  thick  around  the  vicinity  of  our  colleges 
and  universities  we  know  of  one  Catholic  institution  (Santa  Clara 
University)  that  is  harassed  and  annoyed  by  no  less  than  thirteen 
grog-shops  all  within  300  feet  of  its  doors — then  we  begin  to  real- 
ize how  earnestly  some  of  us  grow  to  wish  for  an  opportunity  to 
vote  the  saloon  out  of  our  neighborhood." 

123  The  first  note  on  the  Butler  Dry  Zone  bill  was  as  follows: 
For  the  Butler  bill — Anderson,   Benedict,   Benson,   Breed,   Brown, 

Butler,  Campbell,  Carr.  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Duncan,  Jones,  Kehoe, 
King,    Luce,    Maddux,    Mott,    Purkitt   and   Thompson — 19. 

Against  the  Butler  bill — Ballard,  Beban,  Birdsall,  Colin,  Crow- 
ley, Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Irwin,  Lyon,  Owens, 
Scott,    Shearer,    Slater,    Stuckenbruck,    Tyrrell   and   Wolfe — 19. 

Butler  changed  his  vote  from  aye  to  no  that  he  might  secure 
reconsideration. 


156  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

Lieutenant-Governor  Eshleman  the  deciding  vote.  As 
the  general  impression  was  that  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
advocated  such  legislation,  the  friends  of  the  measure 
had  no  doubt  as  to  how  Lieutenant-Governor  Eshleman 
would  vote  were  the  question  to  be  put  to  him.  Butler 
changed  his  vote  from  aye  to  no,  and  gave  notice  that 
on  the  next  legislative  day  he  would  move  to  re- 
consider the  vote  by  which  the  bill  had  been  denied 
passage. 

The  measure  came  up  for  reconsideration  the  next 
day.  Strobridge  and  Rush,  who  had  not  voted  the  day 
before,  were  found  to  be  against  the  bill.  But  the  meth- 
ods employed  by  the  opposition  to  secure  the  measure's 
defeat  had  exasperated  Irwin,  who  had  the  day  before 
voted  against  the  measure. 

"The  San  Francisco  delegation,"  announced  Irwin, 
"had  their  chance  yesterday  to  make  this  measure  a  fair 
bill.  The  San  Francisco  delegation  refused  to  accept 
the  opportunity.  I  am  not  going  to  carry  water  for 
them.     I  am  going  to  vote  for  this  bill." 

And  Irwin  did  vote   for  the  bill. 

This  made  the  vote  20  to  20, 124  giving  Lieutenant- 
Governor  Eshleman  opportunity  to  cast  the  deciding 
vote.  His  word  "Yes"  would  have  meant  the  sending 
of  the  bill  to  the  Assembly  for  probable  passage,  and 


124  The  vote  by  which  the  Butler  Dry  Zone  bill  was  finally 
defeated  was: 

For  the  bill — Anderson,  Benedict,  Benson,  Breed,  Brown,  Butler, 
Campbell,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Duncan,  Irwin,  Jones,  Kehoe, 
King,    Luce,    Maddux,    Mott,    Purkitt,    Thompson. 

Against  the  bill — Ballard,  Beban,  Birdsall,  Cohn,  Crowley,  Finn, 
Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Hans,  Lyon,  Owens,  Rush,  Scott,  Shearer, 
Slater,  Strobridge,  Stuckenbruck,  Tyrrell,  Wolfe  and  President 
Fshleman. 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  157 

the  ending  of  the  abuses   of   the  liquor   traffic   in   the 
vicinity  of  the  State's  principal  schools. 

And  Lieutenant-Governor  Eshleman  voted  NO.125 


125  Governor  Eshleman  had  printed  in  the  Senate  Journal  a 
statement  of  his  reasons  for  his  vote.  The  statement  was  as 
follows: 

"When  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  exercises  his  preroga- 
tive conferred  by  the  Constitution  and  votes  on  a  measure,  he  be- 
comes for  the  time  being  a  legislator  and  is  in  no  different  posi- 
tion from  the  other  members  of  the  Senate.  I,  therefore,  deem 
that  I  have  the  same  privilege  to  explain  my  vote  as  have  the 
members  of  the  Senate.  I  believe  this  bill  is  a  bad  and  unfair 
measure.  I  am  in  thorough  sympathy  with  its  alleged  intent,  but 
I  am  not  in  sympathy  with  the  method  of  attempting  to  carry  it 
out.  I  will  not  countenance  an  unfair  means  even  to  accomplish 
a  good  thing. 

"By  enactment  of  the  Legislature  it  was  left  to  the  communi- 
ties to  deal  with  this  question  as  they  saw  fit.  The  fundamental 
considerations  of  popular  government  require  that  the  majority 
in  each  community  control  and  the  law  be  of  uniform  application. 
If  there  be  some  strong  and  controlling  reason  why  a  different 
rule  should  apply  to  one  community  than  another  such  reason 
would  justify  the  dominant  authority  in  the  State  in  taking  from 
such  community  the  rights  that  are  exercised  by  other  communi- 
ties in  similar  circumstances.  No  such  controlling  reasons  exist 
in   the   case  before   this   Senate. 

"Having  provided  a  way  for  eliminating  the  saloons  in  the  unit 
adopted  by  the  Legislature,  that  method  should  be  followed  unless 
the  Legislature  or  the  people  themselves  apply  a  different  rule 
either  by  eliminating  them  all  or  by  taking  from  all  communities 
the  right  to  decide.  But  when  the  right  to  decide  is  reposed  in  a 
constituency,  that  right  to  decide  carries  with  it  the  right  to  de- 
cide wrongly,  and  it  is  more  important  that  a  constituency  have 
the  right  to  decide  and  that  their  will  be  not  thwarted,  than  that 
any  particular  reform  be  consummated.  In  the  present  case,  as  I 
have  already  said,  regardless  of  the  alleged  intent  of  this  bill 
there  has  been  nothing  disclosed  to  me  which  leads  me  to  believe 
that  a  different  rule  should  apply  to  the  communities  here  involved 
than  to  the  other  communities  of  the  State.  I  put  the  test  upon 
myself  that  I  put  upon  the  one  opposing  me,  and  if  the  means 
resorted  to  by  the  one  opposing  me  would  be  decided  unfair  means 
by  me,  when  my  opponents  are  seeking  to  perpetrate  what  I  con- 
sider a  wrong,  then  the  same  means  employed  by  me  to  bring 
about  what  I  consider  a  right  are  just  as  reprehensible.  There  is 
not  an  advocate  of  prohibition  upon  the  floor  of  this  Senate,  in 
my  opinion,  who  would  not  raise  his  hands  in  holy  horror  if  the 
liquor  interests  resorted  to  the  same  subterfuge  in  making  dry 
territory  wet  in  defiance  of  the  local  option  law  as  is  being  used 
here  in  an  attempt  to  make  wet  territory  dry,  and  I  believe  his 
indignation  would  be  justified.  The  fact  that  the  liquor  interests 
have  resorted  to  unfair  means  in  the  past,  and  no  doubt  some  of 
them  at  least  will  do  so  in  the  future,  does  not  in  the  least  change 
the  situation  nor  relieve  us  from  the  necessity  of  dealing  with 
scrupulous  fairness.     Otherwise  we  are  but  Pharisees. 

"I  have  no  misconception  of  the  effect  of  the  emergency  which 
makes  it  necessary  for  me  to  decide  this  question,  but  I  have  no 
apology  to  make.  Simply  I  desire  to  have  my  reasons  set  forth. 
T  am  at  least  justifying  and  satisfying  myself.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
if  I  do  not  satisfy  others,  but  that  is  a  matter  over  which  I  have 
no  control." 


158  The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill 

Technically  speaking,  Lieutenant-Governor  Eshle- 
man's  negative  vote  did  not  defeat  the  "Dry  Zone"  bill. 
Twenty-one  votes  were  required  for  its  passage.  Twenty 
votes  only  had  been  cast  for  it.  Lieutenant-Governor 
Eshleman  was  not  required  to  vote,  but  it  was  his  con- 
stitutional privilege  to  vote  if  he  elected  so  to  do.  His 
negative  vote  did  not  change  the  result.  His  affirmative 
vote  would  have  put  the  bill  through  the  Senate,  giving 
it  the  twenty-one  votes  necessary  for  its  passage.120 

126  The  attitude  on  Governor  Eshleman's  vote,  of  informed 
persons  who  stand  for  clean  conditions  in  California,  was  ex- 
pressed in  a  letter  from  former  Lieutenant-Governor  A.  J. 
Wallace  to  Governor  Eshleman.  Governor  Wallace's  letter  was 
in  response  to  a  letter  from  Governor  Eshleman.  Governor  Wal- 
lace said: 

"Hon.  John  M.  Eshleman,  Lieutenant-Governor,  Sacramento, 
California: — Your  letter  of  April  7th  is  at  hand.  As  you  indicate, 
it  is  perhaps  more  general  than  personal,  but  it  is  alive  and 
interesting.  You  are  not  greatly  disturbed  by  criticism.  You 
expected  it.  The  question  is  not  did  you  vote  on  the  'Zone' 
bill  as  I  might  have  voted,  or  as  I  would  have  had  you  vote, 
but  did  you  vote  your  judgment  and  your  conscience?  The  answer 
is  you  did,  and  men  and  women  generally  will  credit  you  with 
so  doing,   as  I  certainly  do. 

"And  now,  very  frankly,  I  wish  you  had  seen  your  way  clear 
to  cast  your  vote  for  the  'Dry  Zone'  bill.  Your  letter  indicates 
that  you  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  intent  of  the  bill  was 
simply  to  close  a  large  number  of  saloons  that  couldn't  be  closed 
by  a  local  vote,  and  that  their  relation  to  certain  schools  was 
used  as  an  excuse  for  this  action.  I  venture  to  think  that  you 
were  in  error  and  that  the  real  purpose  of  the  bill  was  in 
harmony  with  its  declared  purpose.  The  type  of  men  who  were 
the  sponsors  of  this  measure  does  not  suggest  pretense  in  its 
purpose,  and  the  character  of  its  upholders  in  the  State  Senate 
compels    conviction    in    favor   of    its    straightforwardness. 

"The  principle  was  not  new.  It  is  already  established  and 
recognized  by  the  State.  It  was  applied  in  the  mile-zone  around 
the  State  University  and  the  larger  zones  around  Stanford  and 
Davis.  This  'Zone'  bill  gave  the  principle  of  protection  against 
liquor  influences  a  wider  application.  The  need  may  be  greater 
at  Berkeley  and  Stanford,  as  the  institutions  are  larger,  but  the 
need  exists  in  the  cases  of  the  other  schools  and  the  application 
of  the  already  established  principle  to  Santa  Clara  College,  and 
our  Normal  schools  made  an  appeal  that  many  recognized  as  a 
reasonable    and    not   a    revolutionary    advance. 

"You  have  a  keen  instinct  for  fair  play,  and  when  you  once 
got  the  view  that  this  'Zone'  bill  was  aimed  to  do  by  indirection 
what  could  not  be  done  by  a  direct  method,  you  rebelled.  Per- 
haps in  another  frame  of  mind  you  might  have  reasoned  that 
this  same  principle  of  fair  play  called  for  protection  of  the  student 
at  Chico  and  Santa  Clara  just  as  truly  as  the  student  at  Berkeley 
or  at   Stanford. 

"You  take  the   cases  of   San   Jose  and   Pasadena  and  claim   that 


The  "Dry  Zone"  Bill  159 

it  is  as  wrong  to  make  San  Jose  dry  contrary  to  the  wishes  of 
its  citizens  as  it  would  be  to  make  Pasadena  wet  contrary  to 
the  views  of  its  citizens.  I  do  not  agree  with  that  conclusion. 
It  accords  undue  respectability  to  the  liquor  traffic.  Our  nation, 
through  its  Supreme  Court,  declares  'there  are  few  sources  of 
crime  and  misery  equal  to  the  dram  shop.'  And  our  State  Supreme 
Court  says  the  saloon  business  is  'a  business  in  itself  dangerous 
to   the   morals   and  good   order  of  the   city.' 

"Because  of  these  declarations  and  the  inherent  truth  con- 
tained in  them  it  cannot  be  as  far  wrong  to  throw  this  traffic 
out  of  a  community  where  the  people  want  it  in  as  it  would 
be  to  put  that  traffic  into  a  community  where  the  people  have 
declared   that  they  want   it  out. 

"Further,  as  we  are  considering  this  matter  from  the  viewpoint 
of  protection  for  our  schools,  you  will  find  it  much  easier  to 
prove  that  the  San  Jose  schools  would  be  benefited  by  the  re- 
moval of  the  liquor  traffic  from  their  vicinity  than  you  will  to 
prove  that  the  schools  of  Pasadena  would  be  benefited  by  the 
establishing   of   the    liquor    traffic    in    their   vicinity. 

"Your  position  that  true  democracy  is  recognized  in  our  local 
option  law  is  correct,  but  I  hold  the  view  that  it  was  in  harmony 
with  the  essential  principles  of  this  very  democracy,  under  a 
different  mode  of  operation,  that  our  legislators,  by  legal  enact- 
ment, provided  protection  for  the  thousands  of  our  young  people 
who  are  separated  both  from  the  safeguarding  of  the  home  and 
the  protection  of  the  home  ballot  when  in  large  numbers  they 
are  gathered  together  to  secure  an  education.  Our  self-governing 
principles  protect  the  family  as  well  as  the  units  at  its  head,  and 
protect  the  members  of  that  family  in  the  school  as  truly  as  in 
the  home.  Surely,  then,  the  rights  of  democracy  were  not  invaded 
by  enlarging  the  numbers  of  those  protected,  as  would  have  been 
the   case   if  this   'Zone'   bill   had   become  a  law. 

"I  assume  that  you  have  sought  my  views  because  you  know 
of  my  very  high  regard  for  you  personally.  This  letter  gives 
those  views  and  makes  clear  that  I  do  not  agree  with  your 
conclusions,  but  this  letter  is  at  fault  if  it  does  not  also  make 
clear  that  I  still  hold  you  in  very  high  esteem.  Very  truly  yours, 
A.   J.   Wallace." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
Move  to   Restore  Racetrack   Gambling. 

The  three-cornered  fight  in  the  1915  Legislature 
between  a  group  intent  upon  bringing  racetrack  gam- 
bling back  into  California,  a  handful  of  sportsmen  to 
revive  legitimate  horse-racing  under  State  supervision, 
and  a  very  determined  citizenry  to  prevent  any  legisla- 
tion that  would  tend  toward  restoration  of  gambling 
hells  of  the  Emeryville  type,  developed  into  one  of  the 
most  interesting  contests   of  the  session. 

Those  who  have  followed  the  activities  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Legislature  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  will 
recall  that  up  to  the  1909  session,  no  progress  was  made 
against  the  gamblers. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Senate  Public  Morals 
Committee  suppressed  legislation  aimed  at  this  form  of 
gambling  became  a  scandal.  It  was  not  until  the  1909 
Legislature  convened  that  any  practical  gains  against 
the  gamblers  were  made.  And  the  success  of  the  anti- 
gambling  element  that  year  was  due  very  largely  to  the 
cooperation  of  a  group  of  horsemen  who  had  refused 
to  subscribe  or  to  submit  to  the  methods  of  the 
gambling  element  in  control  at  the  principal  tracks  of 
the  State.  Some  of  these  horsemen-protestors  against 
the  abuses  at  Emeryville,  had  found  themselves  ar- 
bitrarily barred  from  the  track.  Opinion  grew  among 
them  that  to  make  horse-racing  reputable,  book-making 
and   pool-selling  must  be   stopped.      They   accordingly 


Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling    161 

joined  with  the  "reformers"  to  suppress  gambling  at 
the  tracks. 

The  man  who  had  most  to  do  with  the  passage  of 
the  anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  in  1909,  probably  ^  was 
Mr.  C.  T.  Boots,  breeder  of  some  of  the  finest  thor- 
oughbreds that  ever  brought  reputation  to  California 
stock  farms. 

Mr.  Boots  remained  at  Sacramento  during  the  1909 
session  at  his  own  expense.  Much  of  the  data  which 
was  used  with  telling  effect  against  the  pro-gambling 
group  was  furnished  by  Mr.  Boots  and  his  associates. 
Thus  assisted,  the  normal  citizenry  of  the  State  were 
able  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  Walker-Otis  bill.  This 
measure  outlawed  racetrack  gambling. 

But  the  assisting  horsemen  did  not  aim  to  outlaw 
horse-racing.  They  proposed  that  the  racing  game  be 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a  racing  commission ;  that  book- 
making  and  pool-selling  be  eliminated ;  that  the  grip  of 
the  Emeryville  group  which  had  brought  horse-racing 
into  disrepute,  be  broken. 

However,  gambling  continued  at  Emeryville  in 
spite  of  the  Walker-Otis  law.  In  one  of  those  "test 
cases"  which  the  underworld  element  finds  so  effective 
in  blocking  the  expressed  will  of  The  People,  a  ruling 
was  secured  from  the  Supreme  Court  under  which  the 
gamblers  were  able  to  continue  their  activities.127 

At  the  1911  session  of  the  Legislature,  a  second 
anti-Racetrack  Gambling  measure  was  passed.  This 
1911   law  was   couched  in  terms  so  plain  that  a  way- 

127  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,"  page  182, 
for  account  of  how  this  ruling  was  employed  by  the  gamblers 
to   get  around    the   plain   provisions   of   the   Walker-Otis   law. 


162    Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling 

faring"  man,  though  a  justice  on  the  Supreme  Bench 
of  the  State  of  California,  need  not  err  therein  as  to 
The  People's  meaning.  The  People  of  California  didn't 
want'  racetrack  gambling.  They  so  expressed  themselves 
in  interpretation-proof  language.  Under  this  1911  act, 
except  in  communities  such  as  San  Francisco,  where 
underworld  and  corporation  control  blocks  enforcement 
of  the  law,  pool-selling  and  book-making  came  to  an 
end. 

In  1912,  the  gambling  element  appealed  to  The 
People  for  restoration  of  racetrack  gambling  by  means 
of  Paris  mutuels  and  Auction  pools.  Their  appeal  was 
characteristic. 

By  misrepresentation  in  many  instances,  and  de- 
liberate forgery  in  others,  they  succeeded  in  getting  an 
initiative  petition  bearing  a  sufficient  number  of  signa- 
tures to  get  their  pro-gambling  bill  on  the  ballot. 

The  measure  was  rejected  at  the  polls,  however,  with 
a  majority  of  over  203,000  against  it. 

The  gamblers  made  no  attempt  to  regain  their  foot- 
hold through  the  1913  Legislature.  But  at  the  1915 
session  they  renewed  their  efforts  to  make  racetrack 
betting  by  the  Paris  mutuels  and  Auction-pool  systems 
legal. 

Quite  independent  of  this  move,  C.  T.  Boots  and 
other  horsemen  who  had  assisted  in  the  passage  of 
the  Walker-Otis  bill  six  years  before,  went  before  the 
Legislature  asking  for  establishment  of  a  Horse-racing 
Commission  to  make  California  horsemen  independent 
of  the  group  that  dominated  the  Emeryville  track. 

But  neither  group  made  headway.  The  verdict  of 
the    decent    citizenry    of    the    State,    as    represented    in 


Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling    163 

Senate  and  Assembly,  was  overwhelmingly  against  both 
those  who  would  restore  racetrack  gambling  and  those 
who  would  establish  a  Racing  Commission.  The  backers 
of  the  Racing-Commission  plan  claimed  that  only  by 
means  of  such  a  commission  could  the  grip  of  the  old 
Emeryville  group  be  broken.  The  Emeryville  group,  by 
the  way,  have  continued  their  organization,  and  to  a 
large  extent  their  machinery.  They  may  be  counted 
upon  to  strike  for  restoration  of  their  gambling  privi- 
leges the  day  the  reputable  citizenry  of  the  State  forget 
and  become  indifferent  to  the  evils  of  racetrack 
gambling.128 

From  the  beginning  of  the  session  there  were  rumors 
that  an  effort  would  be  made  to  make  ineffective  by 
amendment,  or  to  repeal  entirely,  the  act  of  1911,  under 
which  racetrack  gambling  had  been  outlawed.  The  first 
move  to  that  end  came  toward  the  end  of  the  first  part 
of  the  session,  when  Marron  of  San  Francisco  intro- 
duced a  measure  providing  for  a  racing  commission 
of  members  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor.129     The 


128  C.  T.  Boots,  J.  C.  Nealon  and  Porter  Ash  testified  before 
the  public  morals  committees  of  Senate  and  Assembly  that  the 
old  Emeryville  crowd  had  kept  their  hold  upon  the  track  at 
Emeryville  at  a  cost  of  $500  a  month  rental,  besides  maintaining 
elaborate  club  rooms  at  San  Francisco.  The  track  property 
has  since,  however,   been  subdivided. 

129  Assembly  Bill  720,  1915  series.  Marron  also  introduced  a 
constitutional  amendment,  A.  C.  A.  No.  13,  1915  series,  under 
which  prize  fighting,  outlawed  by  direct  vote  of  The  People  at 
the  1914  general  election,  could  have  been  resumed  in  California. 
Although  introduced  as  a  constitutional  amendment,  it  was  indeed 
a  statute,  some  six  pages  in  length.  To  guard  against  any  possible 
failure  of  the  exploiters  of  prize  fighting  to  control  the  Legislature, 
the  measure  provided  that:  "The  Legislature  may  pass  such  laws 
as  may  be  necessary  to  carry  the  provisions  of  this  article  into 
force  and  effect,  but  may  not  place  any  other  or  further  limita- 
tions than  are  herein  imposed  upon  boxing  or  sparring  matches 
or  exhibitions  conducted,  held  or  given  by  any  club,  corporation 
or  association  duly  licensed  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this 
article."      This    measure    did    not    come    to    vote    in    either    House. 


164    Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling 

measure  was  a  mild  one.  It  did  not  authorize  betting 
and  apparently  did  not  repeal  the  1911  anti-gambling 
act.  But  there  was  nothing  in  the  bill  to  prevent 
gambling.  It  was  one  of  those  mysterious,  colorless 
measures  which  may  mean  nothing,  or  may  be  made  to 
mean  anything.  The  bill  was  not  pressed  either  in 
committee  or  on  the  floor. 

On  the  last  day  of  the  first  part  of  the  session,  how- 
ever, Marron  introduced  a  second  racetrack  bill  which 
was  decidedly  a  pro-gambling  measure.  Of  the  purpose 
of  this  bill  there  could  be  no  question. 

This  measure,  Assembly  Bill  1405,  provided  defi- 
nitely for  betting  at  the  tracks  under  the  Paris  mutuels 
and  Auction  pool  systems.  Furthermore,  it  as  defi- 
nitely repealed  all  conflicting  acts  and  parts  of  acts. 
The  conflicting  act  which  stood  in  the  way  of  Assembly 
Bill  1405  was  the  anti-Racetrack  Gambling  law  of  1911. 

This  Marron  measure  contained  one  provision  which 
was  quite  characteristic  of  those  who  seek  to  engage 
in  such  gambling  enterprises  as  were  formerly  conducted 
at  Emeryville.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Emery- 
ville gamblers  were  extremely  "generous."  They  con- 
tributed   to    hospitals,130    to    funds    for    taking    care    of 

130  Pabiola  Day,  on  which  the  Emeryville  gate  receipts  went 
to  Fabiola  Hospital,  was  one  of  the  events  of  the  Emery- 
ville season.  The  day  was  made  a  social  occasion.  Alameda 
county  society  people  attended.  Many  made  their  first  bets  on 
Fabiola  Day.  They  returned  later  "to  win  back  their  losses." 
The  gamblers  found  the  Fabiola  Day  investment  of  the  gate 
receipts  highly  profitable.  Their  "generosity"  compared  very 
well  with  the  well-advertised  "generosity"  of  any  tenderloin  or 
corporation  group.  The  Home  Telephone  Company,  for  example, 
on  the  advice  of  Abe  Ruef  that  the  "generosity"  would  create  a 
good  impression  for  the  company,  subscribed  to  the  San  Fran- 
cisco relief  fund  at  the  time  of  the  1!>06  earthquake  and  fire, 
$75,000.  The  company  was  at  the  time,  through  Ruef,  bribing 
the  San  Francisco  Board  of  Supervisors  to  give  it  a  telephone 
franchise  for  $25,000.  The  agent  of  another  company  testified 
under  oath  that  his  principals  were  at  the  time  willing  to  pay 
San  Francisco  $1,000,000  for  such  a  franchise.  Again,  the  "gener- 
osity"  of  the  exploiting  element  was   very  profitable    "generosity." 


Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling    165 

maimed  children.  No  doubt  they  gave  generously  to 
church  fairs  and  even  churches.  They  also  corrupted 
school  children,  broke  up  homes,  drove  men  to  suicide, 
and  women  to  worse.  They  filled  the  penitentiaries. 
Their   "generosity"   came   high. 

The  characteristic  bit  in  the  Marron  bill  was  the 
generous  provision  that,  "five  per  cent,  of  the  total  gate 
receipts  of  every  race  meeting  shall  be  paid  into  the 
State  treasury." 

The  measure  providing  for  a  Racing  Commission, 
which  had  the  backing  of  the  horsemen  who  were 
opposing  the  Emeryville  gambling  element,  was  intro- 
duced in  the  Senate.  Even  before  it  was  introduced, 
it  was  being  described  in  the  San  Francisco  press  as  the 
pro-gambling  act  of  the  session.131  This  was  not,  how- 
ever, borne  out  by  its  provisions. 

The  measure  provided  for  a  Racing  Commission 
of  five  members  authorized  to  issue  licenses  for  race 
meets.  In  this,  it  was  like  the  first  Marron  bill.  It 
also  contained  drastic  provisions  against  gambling,  and 
expressly  provided  that  nothing  in  its  provisions  was  in- 
tended to  repeal  the  anti-gambling  act  of  1911.  Fur- 
thermore, the  furnishing  of  race  information  to  pool- 
rooms was  strictly  prohibited.  With  such  provision 
enforced,  the  operation  of  outside  pool-rooms  would 
be  impossible.  Here,  again,  did  it  differ  from  the 
Marron  measure. 

An  open  hearing  on  the  bill  was  had  before  the 
Senate  Public  Morals  committee.     Those  supporting  it 

131  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  particular  that  the  papers 
which  were  condemning  the  horsemen's  bill  were  paying  little  or 
no  attention  to  the  pro-gambling  measure  which  had  been  intro- 
duced  by  Marron. 


1 66    Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling 

signified  their  willingness  to  accept  any  amendment  that 
would  strengthen  the  existing  law  against  racetrack 
gambling,  and  to  bar  vice  from  the  track.  Incidentally, 
they  told  something  of  the  inside  history  of  the  differ- 
ences between  certain  horsemen  and  the  Emeryville 
group.  They  stated  that  in  1907  the  Pacific  Jockey 
Club  arrogated  to  itself  jurisdiction  over  all  racing  west 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The  Pacific  Jockey  Club  is 
recognized  by  the  New  York  Jockey  Club.  The  Western 
club  is  dominated,  the  proponents  of  the  bill  stated,  by 
the  men  who  formerly  controlled  at  Emeryville.  J.  C. 
Nealon  and  others  stated  to  the  committee  that  when  the 
anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  was  passed  in  1909,  an  offi- 
cial of  the  Pacific  Jockey  Club  boasted  there  should  be 
no  racing  in  California  until  the  anti-Racetrack  Gam- 
bling law  had  been  repealed. 

"And,"  announced  Nealon,  "for  six  years  they  have 
made  their  threat  good.  The  State  Racing  Commission 
which  we  ask  would  supplant  that  element  and  make  it 
possible  to  hold  race  meetings  in  California  without 
betting  features  of  any  kind." 

Senator  Luce,  chairman  of  the  Senate  Public  Morals 
committee,  became  convinced  that  the  contention  of 
the  backers  of  the  Senate  bill  was  sound,  and  that  the 
relief  sought  by  the  horsemen  should  be  granted.  But 
other  members  of  the  committee  could  see  no  good 
reason  for  running  the  risk  of  giving  an  entering  wedge 
of  which  the  gambling  element  might  take  advantage. 
Their  position  was  well  stated  by  Senator  Chandler 
of  Fresno : 

"While  I  have  all  confidence  in  you  gentlemen," 
said  Chandler  to  those  who  appeared  on  behalf  of  the 


Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling    167 

bill,  "nevertheless  I  feel  that  if  this  bill  be  enacted,  that 
within  six  or  eight  years  conditions  will  have  so 
changed  that  the  law  will  be  amended  until  we  shall 
have  returned  to  the  old  gambling  conditions  which  we 
have  succeeded  in  doing  away  with." 

Senator  Luce  took  the  horsemen  at  their  word,  and 
suggested  a  series  of  carefully  considered  amendments. 
The  amendments  strengthened  the  provisions  against 
gambling,  prohibited  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  at 
the  track,  and  provided  the  machinery  by  which  any 
citizen  could  proceed  against  any  race  meeting  con- 
ducted in  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  act. 

The  amendments  were  offered  by  Beban  of  San 
Francisco,  author  of  the  bill.  Furthermore  they  were 
supported  by  the  San  Francisco  delegation.  In  the 
vernacular  of  the  track,  in  supporting  a  measure  pro- 
hibiting the  sale  of  intoxicants  and  gambling,  the  San 
Francisco  members  were  not  "running  to  form."  The 
evident  concern  of  the  San  Francisco  members  for  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  regardless  of  the  sacrifice  of  liquor 
and  gambling  interests,  did  not  tend  to  lay  the  prejudice 
against  it.  Senator  Benedict  of  Los  Angeles  expressed 
the  attitude  of  a  considerable  group  of  Senators  when 
he  said: 

"If  we  pass  this  bill,  at  the  very  next  session  we 
shall  have  advocates  of  gambling  up  here  with  the  plea 
that  racing  cannot  be  conducted  without  gambling.  They 
will  offer  to  divide  their  gambling  profits — with  some 
charitable  institution  probably.  I  am  against  such 
policy." 

But  the  amendments  were  adopted  and  the  bill 
brought  to  vote. 


1 68    Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling 

The  feature  of  the  debate  which  preceded  the  vote 
was  that  every  member  who  spoke  for  the  bill  insisted 
that  he  was  against  racetrack  gambling;  and  that  the 
pending  measure  could  not  be  employed  as  a  step 
toward  racetrack  gambling. 

"If,"  said  Senator  Ballard,  "I  believed  this  bill 
would  revive  gambling,  I  would  be  as  much  against  it 
as  its  strongest  opponent." 

"I  have,"  said  Senator  Strobridge,  "voted  for  every 
bill  to  prevent  racetrack  gambling  since  I  have  been  in 
the  Legislature.  I  would  not  vote  for  this  bill  if 
gambling  could  be  revived  under  it." 

"I  don't  believe,"  said  Senator  Struckenbruck,  "that 
a  Legislature  will  ever  convene  in  California  that  will 
repeal  the  anti-Racetrack  Gambling  law." 

Senator  Beban — the  only  San  Francisco  member  who 
took  part  in  the  debate,  although  the  San  Francisco 
members  of  both  Houses  evinced  the  keenest  interest, 
several  of  the  San  Francisco  Assemblymen  being 
present — insisted  there  was  "no  possibility  of  any  Legis- 
lature of  the  future  attempting  to  amend  the  pending 
measure  so  as  to  permit  racetrack  gambling." 

But  the  majority  of  the  Senate  could  not  be  con- 
vinced. Senator  Jones  of  Santa  Clara  voiced  the  ma- 
jority view  when  he  insisted  that  were  the  bill  to  be 
passed,  lobbyists  would  be  before  the  next  Legislature 
with  the  plea  that  gambling  should  be  permitted  under 
State  supervision.  "The  fight  against  gambling  at  the 
1909  and  the  1911  sessions,"  insisted  Senator  Jones  in 
conclusion,  "was  too  hard  a  fight  to  be  lost  in  this 
way." 

The  bill  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of    11    for  to  20 


Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling    169 

against.132  Beban  changed  his  vote  from  aye  to  no,  to 
give  notice  of  a  motion  for  reconsideration.  But  noth- 
ing came  of  Beban's  move.  The  measure  was  defi- 
nitely defeated.  Of  the  seven  San  Francisco  members, 
six  voted  for  the  bill.  The  seventh  member,  Scott,  did 
not  vote. 

In  the  Assembly  an  attempt  was  made  to  put  through 
the  Marron  bill.  Before  it  came  to  final  vote,  however, 
it  was  amended  to  prohibit  gambling  as  absolutely  as 
had  the  Senate  measure.  The  sale  of  intoxicants  at 
the  racing  grounds  was  also  definitely  prohibited.  But 
the  opponents  of  racetrack  gambling  could  not  discover 
that  the  measure  was  necessary,  or  even  desirable. 
Although  the  bill  got  a  better  vote  than  had  the  Beban 
bill  in  the  Assembly,  it  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  32 
to  32,133  forty-one  votes  being  required  for  its  passage. 


After  adjournment  of  the  California  Legislature,  it 
developed  that  laws  to  establish  Racing  Commissions 
had  been  passed  by  the   Nevada,    Colorado   and   other 


132  The  vote  by  which  the  Racetrack  bill  was  defeated  was  as 
follows : 

For  the  bill — Ballard,  Beban,  Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Gerdes, 
Luce,    Rush,    Strobridge,    Stuckenbruck,    and    Wolfe — 11. 

Against  the  bill — Anderson,  Benedict,  Benson,  Birdsall,  Brown, 
Butler,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Duncan,  Flint,  Irwin,  Jones,  Kehoe, 
King,    Maddux,    Mott,    Purkitt,    Slater,   and    Thompson — 20. 

133  The  vote  by  which  the  Marron  bill  was  finally  defeated  was: 
For  the  Marron   bill — Anderson,    Arnerich,   Ashley,    Beck,   Boyce, 

Browne,  M.  B. ;  Bruck,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Cary,  Chenoweth,  Ellis, 
Ferguson,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris,  Hawson,  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Judson, 
Kennedy,  Kerr,  Manning,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.; 
Pettis,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Quinn,  Ream,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  and 
Widenmann — 32. 

Against  the  Marron  bill — Avey,  Bartlett,  Benton,  Boude,  Burke, 
Chamberlin,  Downing,  Edwards,  R.  G.;  Fish,  Gebhart,  Hayes,  D. 
R. ;  Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter,  Lyon.  McCray,  Mouser,  Phelps, 
Rigdon,  Rominger,  Schmitt.  Scott,  C.  E.;  Scott,  F.  C;  Scott,  L.  D.; 
Sharkey,  Shartel,  Sisson,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W. ;  Wright, 
T.  M.,  and  Young— 32. 


170    Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling 

State  Legislatures.  Immediately  the  gambling  element 
became  prominent  in  the  affairs  of  such  commissions. 
Scandals  developed  at  practically  every  track  where 
racing  under  such  commissions  was  attempted.  In  the 
case  of  the  Nevada  commission  a  minority  standing 
for  clean  sport  endeavored  to  block  the  plans  of  their 
associates,  but  their  efforts  amounted  to  little.  Racing 
was  conducted  at  the  Panama-Pacific  International  Ex- 
position under  the  rules  established  by  the  Nevada  Com- 
mission. The  directors  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Inter- 
national Exposition,  and  the  San  Francisco  authorities, 
in  spite  of  protests  from  reputable  citizens,  permitted 
racetrack  gambling  to  be  carried  on  all  through  the 
meet.  Little  effort  was  made  to  disguise  it.  The  State 
law  was  openly  violated.  The  California  State  Expo- 
sition Commission  protested  against  this  lawlessness  at 
the  Exposition,  but  the  directors  took  no  action.134 

134  The  following  letter  of  protest  from  the  California  State 
Commission  was  sent  to  the  Sub-Committee  of  the  Directors  of 
the  Exposition  directly  responsible  for  the  lawless  conditions  at 
the  track: 

"San  Francisco,   September  9,   1915. 
"To  the   Sub-Committee,    Board  of  Directors,   P.   P.   I.    E. 

"Gentlemen:  When  the  agreement  to  hold  the  race  meet 
at  the  track  was  signed  a  specific  promise  was  made  on 
behalf  of  the  management  that  no  betting  would  be  permitted 
and  every  step  taken  to  prevent  the  making  of  books  and 
the  placing  of   wagers. 

"That  the  management  had  no  intention  of  making  good 
on  this  promise  is  evidenced  by  the  universal  betting,  which 
is   not   only   permitted    but   fostered    each   afternoon. 

"The  sale  of  season  boxes  to  the  bookmakers  and  pro- 
fessional racetrack  gamblers  is  an  evidence  that  the  men  in 
control  of  the  enterprise  propose  to  evade,  if  possible,  every 
responsibility  they  assumed  to  respect  the  law  of  the  State. 
"Any  visitor  who  attends  the  meet  has  ample  opportunity 
to  place  money,  and,  indeed,  would  have  to  dodge  to  avoid 
the  solicitations  of  those  who  desire  to  accommodate  him  in 
this  regard. 

"The  situation  is  rapidly  developing  into  a  scandal  and 
the  brazen  flouting  of  the  law  of  the  Commonwealth  ought 
to    be    immediately   suppressed   by   your   Board." 

Later  the  California  Commission  found  it  necessary  to  protest 
against   other   flagrant   violation   of  the   law   which   the   Exposition 


Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling    171 

The  conditions  at  the  Exposition  track  were  not 
commented  upon  by  the  San  Francisco  press,  but  the 
press  of  the  interior,  so  far  as  it  was  able,  made  strong 
protest. 

"It  is,"  said  the  Sacramento  Bee  in  its  issue  of 
September  18,  1915,  "to  the  shame  of  the  Exposition 
management  that  the  most  pernicious  form  of  gam- 
authorities  permitted  on  the  grounds.  The  Commission's  protest 
read   as  follows: 

"The  Panama-Pacific  International  Exposition  Commission 
of  the  State  of  California  most  earnestly  protests  against  the 
maintenance,  within  the  Exposition  grounds  of  the  gambling 
hell    now   in   full   operation    there. 

"Several  months  ago  this  commission  protested  against  the 
practice  of  gambling  tolerated  by  you  on  the  Zone.  Following 
that  protest,  gambling  was  stopped.  Lately,  however,  and,  we 
are  informed,  with  your  knowledge  and  consent,  and  by  virtue 
of  an  unlawful  agreement  entered  into  between  the  Director 
of  the  Division  of  Concessions  and  Admissions  of  the  Exposi- 
tion, and  J.  W.  Coffroth,  gambling  in  a  more  flagrant  form 
has  been  resumed.  There  are  now  maintained,  under  that 
agreement,  in  the  so-called  '49  Camp,  six  roulette  wheels,  three 
crap  games  and  one  faro  table.  Daily  and  nightly,  on  Sun- 
days as  well  as  week  days,  and  until  1  o'clock  a.  m.,  the 
tables  are  surrounded  by  men  and  women,  some  of  them 
scarcely  out  of  their  teens,  gambling,  or  learning  to  gamble. 
The  player  buys  'scrip'  for  cash  at  the  cashier's  window. 
With  this  'scrip'  checks  are  bought  from  the  dealers  at  the 
tables.  With  these  checks,  the  gambling  is  done.  Nine  out 
of  ten  of  the  players,  it  is  claimed,  lose  their  all  before  they 
quit.  Those  who  win,  or  quit  before  they  lose  their  all,  are 
paid  by  the  dealer  in  'scrip,'  which  is  redeemable  in  mer- 
chandise in  certain  well-advertised  stores,  and  accepted  as 
payment  by  numerous  concessions  on  the  Zone,  by  a  certain 
taxicab  company,  certain  restaurants,  saloons  and  resorts  of 
questionable    character. 

"The  gambling  thus  carried  on  is  in  direct  violation  of  th<» 
laws  of  our  State.  The  'scrip'  is  issued  in  violation  of  Section 
648  of  the  Penal  Code,  which  declares  that  'every  person  who 
makes,  issues  or  puts  in  circulation  any  bill,  check,  ticket, 
certificate  *  *  *  except  as  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  for  the  first  offense  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  for  each  and   every  subsequent  offense   is   guilty  of  felony.' 

"The  games  are  conducted  with  a  view  of  enriching  a  few 
professional  gamblers  and  of  making  some  money  for  the 
Exposition  at  the  expense  of  gullible  visitors  to  the  Exposition 
and  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  good  name  of  the  City  of  San  Fran- 
cisco,   and   the   State   of   California. 

"There  is~  no  excuse  for  this  crime  against  the  public,  not 
even  the  poor  excuse  that  the  Exposition  needs  the  money 
representing  the  percentage  which  it  drives  from  the  criminal 
operations   of   the   gamblers   who    run   the   resort. 

"Upon  the  conclusion  of  the  Exposition  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia will  be  entitled  to  receive  from  the  surplus  of  moneys 
on   hand   its   share   in    proportion    to   the   amount    contributed   by 


172    Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling 

bling,  banned  by  State  law  after  thousands  of  honest 
men  and  good  women  had  been  ruined  through  its 
evils,  was  allowed  inside  of  California's  great  Expo- 
sition. When  the  race  meet  was  planned,  all  con- 
nected with  it  gave  absolute  assurance  that  it  would 
be  conducted  without  gambling.     Despite  that  pledge, 

it.  It  certainly  does  not  intend  to  share  in  profits  arising 
from    the    violation    of    the    laws   of   the    State. 

"As  officers  of  the  State  of  California,  the  Commissioners 
insist  that  you  forthwith  discontinue  all  gambling  games  now 
conducted   in   the  '49   Camp." 

This  communication  was  signed  by  Hon.  Matt.  I.  Sullivan, 
former  Chief  Justice  of  the  California  State  Supreme  Bench,  who 
was  President  of  the  State  Commission.  The  Commission  also 
found  it  necessary  to  protest  to  the  Exposition  Directors  against 
the  indecent  shows  which  were  permitted  on  the  Zone.  These 
shows  were  from  time  to  time  closed,  but  were  repeatedly  re- 
opened. In  these  matters,  the  Directors  of  the  Panama -Pacific 
Exposition  did  not  keep  faith  with  The  People  of  California 
whose  support  by  direct  taxation,  bond  issue  and  private  con- 
tributions, aggregating  upwards  of  $17,500,000,  made  the  Exposi- 
tion possible.  Had  the  California  public  suspected  that  racetrack 
gambling  would  be  resumed  at  the  Exposition  track,  indecent 
exhibitions  tolerated,  and  other  forms  of  gainful  lawlessness 
permitted  on  the  Exposition  grounds,  this  support  would  not  have 
been  given. 

Commenting  upon  the  closing  down  of  certain  gambling  games 
at  the  Exposition  in  the  face  of  public  outcry  against  them, 
the  Fresno  Republican,  in  its  issue  of  September  26,  1915,  said: 
"The  prompt  stoppage  of  the  gambling  in  the  Forty-nine 
camp  on  the  Exposition  zone  in  San  Francisco  is  another 
illustration  of  the  power  of  publicity.  The  members  of  the 
executive  sub-committee  of  the  Exposition  directorate  did 
not  take  this  action  because  they  objected  to  the  gambling. 
On  the  contrary,  they  do  not  object  to  it,  and  it  had  been 
started  with  their  full  knowledge  and  consent.  They  did  not 
stop  it  because  they  had  just  learned  of  it,  for  they  have 
known  all  about  it  from  the  beginning — and  before.  They 
did  not  stop  it  because  they  were  afraid  of  the  State  com- 
missioners, for  they  are  not.  They  did  not  even  stop  it  because 
the  State  commission  protested,  for  they  had  contemptuously 
ignored  a  protest  privately  presented  against  an  equally  open 
violation  of  law  on  the  racetrack  at  the  other  end  of  the 
Exposition  grounds.  They  stopped  it  solely  and  exclusively 
because  this  time  the  protest  was  made  with  an  exceedingly 
loud  noise,  and  with  complete  disregard  of  those  proprieties 
which  ordinarily  dictate  that  such  matters  shall  be  discussed 
behind  closed  doors.  When  the  State  commission's  protest  was 
published  in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  and  Bulletin,  the 
Sacramento  Bee  and  the  Fresno  Republican,  and  was  finally 
sent  out  by  the  Associated  Press  to  be  read  by  everybody, 
everywhere — then  that  protest  was  heeded  promptly  and  un- 
conditionally.    The   public  did   it. 

"While  there  are  things  which  men  are  not  ashamed  to  do 
in  the  dark,  they  suddenly  discover  that  they  are  shameful 
when    the    light    is    turned    on.       For    lawlessness,    whether    in 


Move  to  Restore  Racetrack  Gambling    173 

betting  on  the  races  ran  wide  open.  During  all  the 
thirty-day  period  of  the  racing  there  was  not  a  pro- 
test made  by  the  Exposition  Directors,  nor  by  any  one 
connected  with  the  Exposition.  Not  a  newspaper  in 
San  Francisco  raised  its  voice  in  protest.  The  evil 
was  allowed  to  flourish  unrebuked,  in  defiance  of  State 
law  and  in  violation  of  common  decency." 

Through  the  Panama-Pacific  International  Exposition 
track,  the  racetrack  gamblers,  after  four  years'  banish- 
ment from  the  State,  were  able  to  resume  operations  in 
California.  The  encouragement  thus  given  makes  prob- 
able renewed  activities  on  their  part  in  the  1917  Legis- 
lature to  secure  repeal  or  hampering  amendment  of  the 
anti-Racetrack  Gambling  act  of  1911,  under  which  they 
have  been  driven  out  of  all  California  communities 
where  the  laws  of  the  commonwealth  are  respected. 


high  or  low  place,  there  is  no  policeman  so  efficient  as 
publicity. 

"And  there  could  be  no  better  refutation  than  this  of  the 
snarling  pretense  that  public  sentiment  is  in  favor  of  these 
violations  of  the  law.  'You  ought  to  have  been  raised  in  a 
city,'  said  the  most  sneering  cynic  in  San  Francisco  to  one 
of  the  State  commissioners.  'Then  you  wouldn't  be  so  damned 
narrow-minded  as  to  want  to  impose  your  own  narrow  notions 
on  the  liberal  people  of  a  great  city.'  But  when  the  fact  that 
the  Exposition  was  protecting  an  open  and  notorious  illegal 
gambling  joint  was  printed  where  these  'liberal'  people  in  San 
Francisco  could  read  it,  the  very  menace  of  their  scorn  made 
it  impossible  for  that  protection  to  continue.  The  'liberal' 
people  of  cities  do  not  believe  in  these  things.  Nobody  be- 
lieves in  them.  As  witness  the  fact  that  nobody  dares 
publicly  defend  them,  nor  tolerate  them  when  the  fact  of  his 
doing   so   is   public. 

"One  more  lesson  the  State  commissioners  have  doubtless 
learned.  They  did  not  seek  the  weapon  of  publicity  in  this 
case.  It  came  into  their  hands  unasked  and  accidentally. 
They  were  ever  squeamish  by  reason  of  an  exaggerated  sense 
of  the  amenities  about  using  it.  But  having  had  the  experience 
twice  in  the  same  month  of  protesting  against  the  violation 
of  a  State  law,  once  privately  and  once  publicly,  and  of  having 
the  private  protest  contemptuously  sidetracked  without  even 
the  courtesy  of  an  answer,  while  the  public  protest  was  im- 
mediately effective — well,  it  will  be  their  own  fault  if  any 
future  protests  which  their  duty  to  the  State  law  may  require 
them    to   make    should   not  be  equally   effective." 

Ordinarily,  the  Exposition  management  was  able  to  prevent 
adverse  publicity.  But  on  rare  occasions  the  curtain  was  lifted 
and  the  public  given  a  view  behind  the  scenes.  These  rare 
glimpses   of   what  went   on   there   were  not   reassuring. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

Measures  Supported  by  Women. 

The  principal  organized  effort  of  women  at  the  1915 
session  to  secure  the  enactment  of  given  measures  was 
through  the  Women's  Legislative  Council  of  California. 
This  Council  represented  twenty-five  women's  organiza- 
tions 135  with  a  total  membership  of  75,000. 

135  The  Women's  Legislative  Council  of  California  was  or- 
ganized in  October,  1913.  It  was  at  the  opening  of  the  1915 
Legislature,  composed  of  twenty-five  organizations  with  a  total 
membership  of  75,000  women,  as  follows:  Alameda  District  C. 
F.  W.  C,  president,  Mrs.  W.  E.  Colby,  2901  Channing  Way, 
Berkeley;  Alhambra  Wednesday  Afternoon  Club,  president,  Mrs. 
H.  E.  Rose,  Alhambra;  Berkeley  Center  Civic  League,  president, 
Mrs.  Dane  Coolidge,  Dwight  Way  End,  Berkeley;  Berkeley 
Women's  Democratic  Club,  secretary,  Mrs.  L.  L.  Van  Haren,  2311 
Hilgard  avenue,  Berkeley;  California  Federation  of  Women's 
Clubs,  president,  Mrs.  L.  P.  Palmer,  540  W.  Ivy  street,  San  Diego; 
California  Congress  of  Mothers,  president,  Mrs.  H.  N.  Rowell, 
3158  College  avenue,  Berkeley;  California  Women's  Christian 
Temperance  Union  (North),  president,  Mrs.  Sara  J.  Dorr,  706 
Emory  street,  San  Jose;  (South),  president,  Mrs.  L.  S.  Blanchard, 
Temperance  Temple,  Los  Angeles;  California  Civic  League,  presi- 
dent, Miss  Julia  George,  1136  Eddy  street,  San  Francisco;  Cali- 
fornia Juvenile  Protective  Association,  president,  Mrs.  C.  G. 
Irving,  Hotel  Cecil,  San  Francisco;  California  Women's  State 
Democratic  Club,  president,  Mrs.  C.  H.  Spinks,  2912  Benvenue 
avenue,  Berkeley;  California  State  Nurses'  Association,  president, 
Mrs.  Amos  Evans,  68  Fairmont  avenue,  Oakland;  California  Anti- 
Capital  Punishment  League,  president,  Mrs.  S.  Inger,  460  Fair- 
mont, Oakland;  Los  Angeles  City  Teachers'  Club,  president,  Miss 
E.  M.  Hodgkins;  Los  Angeles  Friday  Morning  Club,  president, 
Mrs.  R.  J.  Waters;  Los  Angeles  Woman's  Republic,  president, 
Mrs.  M.  E.  Jenkins,  Fremont  Hotel,  Los  Angeles;  Oakland  Cen- 
ter, Civic  League,  president,  Mrs.  E.  C.  Robinson,  552  Monticello 
avenue,  Oakland;  Pasadena  City  Federation  Parent  Teachers' 
Association,  president,  Mrs.  J.  N.  Probasco,  961  N.  Michigan 
avenue,  Pasadena;  Woman's  Civic  League,  president,  Mrs.  R.  J. 
Burdette,  Pasadena;  Sacramento  Woman's  Council,  president, 
Mrs.  C.  H.  Adams,  2727  M.  street,  Sacramento;  San  Francisco 
Center  Civic  League,  president,  Mrs.  A.  P.  Graupner,  2901  Jack- 
son street,  San  Francisco;  San  Francisco  Woman's  Progressive 
Club  of  the  Mission,  president,  Mrs.  Sarah  Roberts,  55  Chenery 
street;  San  Joaquin  District  C.  F.  W.  C,  president,  Mrs.  H.  A. 
Bates,  Modesto;  San  Jose  Political  Equality  Club,  president,  Mrs. 
L.  Y.  Watkins.  1195  .S.  First  street.  San  Jose;  Stockton  Woman's 
Council,  president,  Mrs.  C.  A.  Clarke,  645  W.  Poplar  street, 
Stockton. 


Measures  Supported  by  Women        175 

The  council  endorsed  six  bills  covering  five  subjects: 
Senate  Bill  511,  providing  for  registration  of  all  births 
and  deaths  under  the  direction  of  the  State  Board  of 
Health ;  Senate  Bill  257,  regulating  child  labor ;  Assembly 
Bill  239,  compulsory  education  for  children  under  six- 
teen; Senate  Bill  427,  providing  for  the  employment  of 
teachers  to  enter  homes  and  give  instruction  in  families ; 
and  Senate  Bills  597  and  599  to  give  women  equal 
standing  with  men   for  jury  service. 

The  first  measure  on  the  list,  the  so-called  Birth 
Registration  bill,  as  originally  introduced  provided  that 
the  State  Board  of  Health  should  have  charge  of  the 
registration  of  all  births  and  deaths.  Marriages  were 
afterwards  added.  The  bill  was  also  amended  to  place 
the  registration  in  charge  of  a  "State  Registrar,"  but 
made  the  secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Health,  ex- 
officio  State  Registrar.  The  Council  claimed  for  the  bill 
that  it  would  "help  to  reduce  infant  mortality,  protect 
children  at  school  and  at  work,  and  protect  personal  and 
property  rights." 

The  measure  did  not  receive  a  negative  vote  in  either 
House. 

The  records  show  that  the  second  bill  supported  by 
the  Council  became  a  law.  It  did.  But  not  with  the 
provisions  it  had  contained  when  the  women  endorsed 
it. 

As  originally  introduced  the  measure  amended  the 
Child  Labor  law  by  raising  the  age  limit  at  which  chil- 
dren may  be  employed  in  gainful  occupations.     It : 

( 1 )  Prohibited  street  vending  by  boys  under  four- 
teen and  girls  under  eighteen. 


176        Measures  Supported  by  Women 

(2)  Prohibited  children  under  sixteen  working  in 
specified  dangerous  industries. 

(3)  Provided  that  labor  in  canneries  shall  not  be 
construed  as  a  horticultural  pursuit.  Indeed,  the  original 
measure  explicitly  provided  that  "horticultural  shall  be 
understood  to  include  the  curing  and  drying,  but  not 
the  canning,  of  all  varieties  of  fruit."  The  measure 
provided  that  "nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to 
prohibit  the  employment  of  minors  at  agricultural,  horti- 
cultural or  viticultural,  or  domestic  labor  during  the 
time  the  public  schools  are  not  in  session,  or  during 
other  than  school  hours." 

The  public  will  some  day  awake  to  the  abuses  which 
are  possible  under  that  exception.136  Then  the  law  to 
protect  children  against  exploitation  will  not  contain 
such  provision.  But  the  original  of  Senate  Bill  257 
provided  a  step  in  the  right  direction  by  declaring  that 
cannery  labor  is  not  horticultural  labor. 

There  was  comparatively  little  opposition  to  the 
provision  that  minors  under  fifteen  shall  not  be  employed 

136  So  long  as  the  employment  of  children  in  agricultural, 
horticultural  and  viticultural  labor  is  unrestricted  the  public  must 
be  alert  against  the  grossest  abuses.  At  the  town  of  Santa  Clara 
a  few  years  ago  an  attempt  was  made,  with  the  sanction  of  the 
School  Board,  to  dismiss  the  children  from  school  a  few  minutes 
before  twelve  each  day,  that  they  might  "work  in  the  fruit," 
which  included  work  in  canneries.  The  schedule  was  to  have 
the  school  open  at  eight  in  the  morning  and  kept  in  continuous 
session  until  the  hour  of  dismissal.  The  children  could  then 
report  at  the  canneries  at  one  o'clock  and  continue  at  work  until 
late  at  night.  At  eight  o'clock  the  next  morning,  they  would 
begin  their  day.  The  plan  was  actually  in  operation  for  several 
days,  but,  owing  to  vigorous  protest  of  parents  who  do  not  exploit 
their  children,  was  abandoned.  There  is  some  reason  to  believe 
that  had  not  this  protest  been  made,  the  plan  would  have  been 
put  in  general  operation  throughout  the  State.  Incidentally  it  may 
be  said  that  the  people  of  California  are  raising  fruit  that  they 
may  raise  and  properly  bring  up  and  educate  children.  They  are 
not  raising  children  that  they  may  raise  fruit,  although  not  a 
few  chambers  of  commerce,  some  parents,  and  most  canneries 
apparently    hold    to    this    mistaken   theory. 


Measures  Supported  by  Women        177 

in  hazardous  work.  There  is  nobody  making  money 
out  of  children  so  employed,  or  at  least  no  group 
strong  enough  to  compel  legislative  consideration.  For 
the  same  reason,  there  was  no  objection  to  the  pro- 
vision to  keep  girl  venders  under  eighteen  years  of  age 
off  the  streets. 

But  there  are  plenty  making  money  off  boy  street 
venders  and  children  cannery  hands.  Pressure  was 
brought  to   compel   exception   in  these  two   cases. 

Nevertheless,  the  bill  went  through  the  Senate,  un- 
changed in  these  two  particulars.  The  fight  to  have 
boy  street  venders  and  children  cannery  hands  left  at 
their  tasks  took  place  in  the  Assembly. 

The  Assembly  Committee  on  Labor  and  Capital  re- 
sisted the  pressure  to  permit  unrestricted  child  labor  in 
canneries,  but  yielded  the  point  on  boy  street  venders. 
The  committee  recommended  that  the  age  limit  of  boy 
street  venders  be  reduced  from  fourteen  to  twelve  years. 

But  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  another  hack  was 
taken  at  the  age  limit  of  boy  street  venders.  It  was 
reduced  from  twelve  to  ten  years.  The  motion  for 
this  further  reduction  was  made  by  Assemblyman  W.  A. 
McDonald  of  San  Francisco,  a  stanch  supporter  of  the 
cause  of  labor.  The  McDonald  amendment  was  read 
into  the  bill  by  a  vote  of  42  to  15. 137 

137  The  vote  by  which  the  McDonald  amendment  fixing  the 
limit  of  the  age  of  boy  street  venders  at  10  years  instead  of 
twelve,    after   having   been   reduced    from    fourteen,    was: 

For  am'd'ts — Arnerich,  Ashley,  Avey,  Bartlett,  Benton,  Boude, 
Boyce,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Chamberlin,  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Encell,  Fish, 
Godsil,  Harris,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Kerr,  Kramer,  Lostutter,  Lyon, 
McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W.  A.;  Mouser,  Phelps,  Phillips, 
Quinn,  Rigdon,  Ryan,  Schmitt,  Scott,  C.  E.;  Scott,  F.  C;  Scott, 
L.  D. ;  Sharkey,  Sisson,  Spengler,  Tabler,  Widenmann,  Wills, 
Wishard,    Wright,    H.    W.,    and    Young— 42. 

Against  am'd'ts — Anderson,  Beck,  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Bruck,  Cary, 
Chenoweth,  Ferguson,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Hayes,  J.  J.; 
Long,  Manning,  McCray,  Ream,  and  Wright,  T.  M. — 15. 


178        Measures  Supported  by  Women 

In  the  country  districts  canners  can  make  money  by 
exploiting  child  labor.  These  canners,  and  those  in 
sympathy  with  them,  are  politically  important;  they 
can  compel  legislative  consideration.  A  second  amend- 
ment was  offered  in  the  Assembly  to  the  child  labor  bill, 
and  adopted,  to  make  "canning"  a  horticultural  pur- 
suit. The  effect  of  the  amendment  was  to  remove  prac- 
tically all  restriction  on  the  employment  of  children  in 
canneries. 

As  amended,  to  permit  boys  after  their  tenth  birth- 
day to  act  as  street  venders,  and  to  remove  practically 
all  restrictions  on  the  employment  of  children  in  can- 
neries, the  bill  was  returned  to  the  Senate.  The  Senate 
concurred  in  the  amendment  providing  for  boy  street 
venders,  but  refused  to  concur  in  the  amendment 
making  "canning"  a  horticultural  pursuit.  The  Assem- 
bly receded  from  this  last  amendment,  and  the  bill 
became  a  law. 

The  compulsory  education  bill  (Assembly  Bill  239) 
as  originally  introduced  provided  that  children  under 
sixteen  years  of  age  be  kept  in  public  or  private  school 
until  the  eighth  grade  is  completed,  unless  sufficient 
evidence  be  furnished  by  parents  or  proper  officials, 
that  the  child,  because  of  physical,  mental,  or  other 
disabilities    cannot   attend. 

The  framers  of  the  bill  had  no  idea  of  denying  the 
privilege  of  attending  private  schools.  However,  when 
the  bill  was  before  the  Assembly  on  April  6,  it  was  so 
amended  as  to  compel  attendance  at  public  schools  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  others.  After  the  bill  had  passed 
both   Houses  and   was  before   the  Governor,   parochial 


Measures  Supported  by  Women        179 

and  other  private  school  interests  protested.  Governor 
Johnson  did  not  sign  it. 

The  "Home  Teachers  bill"  (Senate  Bill  427)  pro- 
vided that  school  districts  may  employ  one  teacher  for 
each  500  pupils,  whose  business  it  shall  be  to  go  into 
the  homes  and  instruct  the  families  in  school  attendance, 
sanitation,  the  English  language,  household  duties,  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  American  system  of  gov- 
ernment and  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizenship.  The 
purpose  of  the  bill  was  to  bring  into  touch  with  Ameri- 
can standards  the  constantly  growing  groups  of  immi- 
grants who  are  in  the  country  but  are  not  of  it. 

The  bill  went  through  the  Senate  without  opposition 
and  without  amendment.  It  passed  the  Assembly — 
after  it  had  been  determined  that  no  important  group 
of  voters  objected  to  its  enactment.  But  three  members 
— Gelder,  Manning  and  Marron — voted  against  it. 

Another  measure  (Assembly  Bill  671),  which  had 
the  general  support  of  women,  established  an  educational 
and  industrial  system  at  the  Sonoma  State  Home.  This 
measure  was  endorsed  by  the  California  Civic  League, 
which  is  made  up  of  organizations  of  women  in  prac- 
tically every  important  community  of  the  State.  Under 
the  terms  of  the  measure,  provision  is  made  for  the 
training  of  each  inmate  at  the  Sonoma  school  up  to  his 
or  her  fullest  capacity,  and  to  provide  for  proper  in- 
struction for  the  higher  grades  of  feeble-minded.  The 
bill  passed  both  Houses  without  a  dissenting  vote  being 
registered  against  it. 

Women  were  also  particularly  interested  in  Senate 
Concurrent   Resolution    No.   22,   introduced  by    Kehoe. 


180        Measures  Supported  by  Women 

This  resolution  set  forth  the  Legislature's  attitude  on  the 
question  of  woman  suffrage.138 

The  resolution  was  adopted  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote 
of  21  to  0.139 

The  resolution  was  adopted  in  Assembly,  but  by 
viva  voce  vote,  no  roll  call  being  taken  to  record  the 
votes  of  the  individual  members. 


138  The   resolution   in   full   read  as   follows: 

Relative  to  the  correction  of  erroneous  reports  regarding  Cali- 
fornia's   experience    under   Woman    Suffrage. 

Whereas,  The  issue  of  Woman  Suffrage  is  pending  in  many 
States  of  the  Union;   and 

Whereas,  The  operation  and  effect  of  the  enfranchisement 
of  women  in  California  is  being  constantly  misrepresented  in 
such  States  and  used  there  as  arguments  in  opposition  to  the 
granting  of  suffrage   to  women;   therefore,   be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  of  the  forty-first  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  of  California,  the  Assembly  concurring,  That 
the  experience  of  this  State  amply  justifies  the  adoption  of 
Woman   Suffrage  by  the  people  in  October,   1911;  and,  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  so  successful  has  been  the  operation  and  effect 
of  granting  political  rights  to  women  equal  to  those  held  by  men, 
that  it  is  generally  conceded  that  were  the  question  to  be  again 
voted  on  by  the  people  of  this  State,  it  would  be  re-endorsed 
by   an   overwhelming  majority;    and,   be   it   further 

Resolved,  That  the  adoption  of  Woman  Suffrage  by  California 
is  one  of  the  important  factors  contributing  to  the  marked 
political,  social  and  industrial  advancement  made  by  our  people 
in  recent  years,  and  that  any  disparagement  of  the  cause  of 
Woman  Suffrage  attempted  elsewhere  on  the  ground  that  Woman 
Suffrage  is  not  satisfactory  to  this  State,  has  no  basis  in  fact, 
and  is  signally  disproved  by  the  acknowledged  intelligence  and 
discrimination  shown  by  women  voters  in  the  settling  of  our 
great    political    and    industrial    problems    at    the    polls. 

139  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  22 
was  adopted  was   as   follows: 

For  the  resolution — Senators  Anderson,  Ballard,  Benson,  Bird- 
sail,  Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Crowley,  Duncan,  Finn, 
Irwin,  Kehoe,  Mott,  Purkitt,  Shearer,  Slater,  Strobridge,  Stucken- 
bruck,    and   Thompson — 20. 

Against   the    resolution — None. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
The  Woman-Juror  Bills. 

The  so-called  Woman-Juror  bills  were  two  in 
number. 

The  first  (Senate  Bill  597)  provided  that  women 
should  serve  on  juries. 

The  companion  measure  (Senate  Bill  599)  provided 
that  on  juries  in  all  trials  of  cases  there  should  be  per- 
sons of  the  same  sex  as  the  parties  to  the  action.  Prac- 
tically the  same  provision  was  in  Senate  Bill  597. 

The  measures  were  strongly  opposed.  The  debates 
over  them  were  not  unlike  the  old-time  disputes  of 
former  sessions  over  woman-suffrage  amendments,  the 
arguments  advanced  against  women  serving  on  juries 
being  about  the  same  as  those  formerly  advanced 
against  the  granting  of  the  ballot  to  women. 

The  issue  was  fought  out  over  Senate  Bill  597. 
That  measure  made  the  code  definitions  of  a  jury,  where 
described  as  "a  body  of  men,"  read  "a  body  of  persons 
of  either  or  both  sexes." 

The  measure  went  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee. The  Committee  sent  the  two  bills  back  to  the 
Senate  with  the   recommendation   that  they  be  passed. 

But  the  bills  had  not  been  before  the  Senate  long 
before  it  became  evident  that  the  committee  recom- 
mendation would  be  ignored.  The  measures  were  sent 
back  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  for  further  considera- 
tion. 

The    Committee    suggested    certain    amendments    to 


182  The  Woman-Juror  Bills 

Senate  Bill  597  and  again  sent  the  bill  to  the  Senate. 
The  companion  bill,  Senate  Bill  599,  was  held  in  com- 
mittee. 

These  suggested  amendments  to  Senate  Bill  597  cut 
all  reference  to  sex  out  of  the  bill.  Where  the  measure 
had  read  "persons  of  either  or  both  sexes,"  it  was  made 
to  read  "Persons."  Under  the  law  as  it  stands  a  jury 
is  described  as  "a  body  of  men."  Under  the  amended 
bill  a  jury  was  described  as  "a  body  of  persons."  This, 
it  was  held,  would  qualify  women  for  jury  service, 
but  did  not  require  that  women  should  serve  on  every 
jury. 

Another  amendment  struck  out  the  provision  that 
on  every  jury  should  be  persons  of  the  sex  of  the  party 
or  parties   concerned   in   the   action. 

When  the  measure  came  to  final  vote,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  amend  it  by  adding  a  provision  that  any 
woman  desiring  to  be  excused  from  jury  service  could 
be  relieved  of  the  duty  by  simply  asking  of  judge  or 
summoning  officer  that  she  be  excused.  This  amend- 
ment was  voted  down  by  a  vote  of  7  to  30.140 

The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a. vote  of  24  for  to  14 
against.141 

140  The  vote  by  which  the  amendment  was  defeated  was: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Duncan,  Gerdes,  Irwin,  King, 
Luce,    Maddux,    and    Slater — 7. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Anderson,  Ballard,  Beban, 
Benedict,  Benson.  Blrdsall,  Breed,  Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Chandler, 
Cogswell,  Cohn,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Hans,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Lyon, 
Mott,  Owens,  Rush,  Scott,  Shearer,  Strobridge,  Stuckenbruck, 
Thompson,    Tyrrell,    and   Wolfe — 30. 

141  The  vote  by  which  the  Woman  Juror  bill  was  passed  was: 
For     the     bill — Senators     Anderson,     Beban,     Benedict,     Benson, 

Birdsall,  Breed,  Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Hans,  Jones, 
Kehoe,  Luce,  Lyon,  Rush,  Scott,  Slater,  Strobridge,  Stuckenbruck, 
Thompson,    Tyrrell,    and    Wolfe — 24. 

Against  the  bill— Senators  Ballard,  Campbell,  Chandler,  Cogs- 
well, Cohn,  Duncan,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Irwin,  King,  Maddux,  Mott, 
Owens,    and    Shearer — 14. 


The  Woman-Juror  Bills  183 

But  Senate  Bill  597  was  a  long  way  from  becoming 
a  law. 

The  following  day,  the  Senate  voted  to  reconsider 
the  vote  by  which  the  bill  had  been  passed.  Thirty- 
three  Senators  voted  for  reconsideration.  Not  a  vote 
was  cast  in  the  negative.  Four  days  later  the  measure 
for  the  second  time  came  up  for  passage. 

One  of  the  hardest-fought  contests  of  the  session 
developed.  Amendment  after  amendment  was  offered 
to  enable  women  who  so  desired  to  escape  jury  service. 
These  amendments  were  combated  on  the  theory  that 
jury  service  is  not  a  privilege  but  a  duty.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  proponents  of  such  amendments  contended 
that  no  woman  who  wishes  to  escape  jury  service 
should  be  compelled  to  serve. 

The  first  of  the  amendments  was  offered  by  Senator 
Benedict.  It  provided  that  no  woman  should  be  sum- 
moned to  serve  as  a  juror  who  failed  to  file,  during  the 
forty-five  days  immediately  preceding  January  15  of 
each  year,  a  statement  declaring  her  willingness  to 
serve. 

Senator  Cogswell  opposed  this  amendment  on  the 
ground  that  the  professional  juror  is  always  objection- 
able, and  that  under  the  amendment  practically  all  the 
women  who  would  go  to  the  trouble  to  signify  their 
willingness  to  serve  would  be  those  of  the  professional 
juror  class. 

"Better  abolish  the  jury  system  entirely,"  said  Cogs- 
well, "than  read  into  it  such  vicious  features  as  this." 

Senator  Butler,  author  of  the  bill,  opposed  the 
amendment,  stating  that  if  it  were  to  be  adopted  he 
hoped  the  bill  would  be  defeated. 


184  •    The  Woman-Juror  Bills 

Senator  Campbell,  who  led  the  opposition  against 
the  bill,  argued  that  since  women  are  not  fit  for  military 
service  they  should  not  be  required  to  do  jury  service. 

"You  are,"  said  Benson  of  Santa  Clara,  in  reply  to 
Campbell's  argument,  "harking  back  to  the  dark  ages 
of  the  suffrage  campaigns.  We  heard  all  that  when 
the    question   of   suffrage   was   under   discussion." 

The  amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of   11    to 

25.142 

Senator  Butler  offered  an  amendment  providing  that 
"no  woman  shall  ever  be  required  to  serve  as  a  juror 
in  any  of  the  courts  of  this  State  unless  she  has 
previously  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  Superior  Court  a 
notice  in  writing  that  she  is  willing  to  serve  as  such 
juror." 

This  amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  17  to 
20.143 

At  this  point  in  the  discussion,  Campbell,  the  leader 
of  the  opposition,  moved  that  the  Senate  go  into  execu- 
tive session. 

Campbell  held  that  at  some  trials,  testimony  is  given 

142  The  vote  by  which  the  Benedict  amendment  was  defeated 
was: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Anderson,  Benedict,  Birdsall, 
Duncan,  Kehoe,  King,  Owen,  Slater,  Strobridge,  Stuckenbruck, 
and    Thompson — 11. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Ballard,  Beban,  Benson, 
Brown,  Butler,  Campbell,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Crow- 
ley, Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Irwin,  Jones,  Luce,  Maddux, 
Mott,    Furkitt,    Scott,    Shearer,    Tyrrell,    and   Wolfe — 25. 

143  The  vote  by  which  the  Butler  amendment  was  defeated 
was: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Anderson,  Benedict,  Birdsall, 
Butler,  Campbell,  Cohn,  Duncan,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Kehoe, 
King,    Owens,    Rush,    Slater,    Strobridge,    and    Thompson — 17. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Ballard,  Beban,  Benson, 
Breed,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Crowley,  Gerdes,  Irwin,  Jones, 
Luce,  Maddux,  Mott,  Purkitt,  Scott,  Shearer,  Stuckenbruck, 
Tyrrell,    and    Wolfe— 20. 


The  Woman-Juror  Bills  185 

which  is  unfit  for  women  to  hear.  He  proposed,  he  said, 
to  read  a  number  of  excerpts  from  California  cases  to 
establish  his  point.  He  did  not  think  that  the  women 
present  in  the  Senate  Chamber  should  hear  the  testi- 
mony. 

Luce  of  San  Diego  denied  the  necessity  of  an 
executive  session.  He  also  insisted  that  nothing  would 
be  gained  by  reading  the  stuff  which  Campbell  had  on 
his  desk;  that  the  reading  of  Campbell's  documents 
would  not  change  a  single  vote. 

Senator  Anderson  backed  up  Luce's  position,  stating 
that  it  was  unnecessary  to  read  such  stuff,  while  Slater 
insisted  that  an  executive  session  and  the  reading  of 
Campbell's  "evidence''  would  be  a  waste  of  time. 

Nevertheless,  the  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  23  to  16 144 
decided  to  go  into  executive  session. 

The  executive  session  was  as  tame  as  it  was  un- 
necessary. Campbell  did  not  read  the  testimony  de- 
scribed as  unfit  for  woman's  ears ;  there  was  no  reason 
why  the  women  or  anybody  else  should  have  been  ex- 
cluded. Campbell,  after  the  room  had  been  cleared, 
was  treated  to  strong  intimation  that  what  is  unfit  for 
women  to  hear  is  not  fit  to  be  inflicted  upon  men.  But 
even  had  the  stuff  been  read,  it  would  not,  as  Ijtce  had 
very  well  said,  have  influenced  a  single  vote  One  way 
or  the  other. 


144  The  vote  by  which  the  Senate  decided  to  go  into  executive 
session   was  as   follows: 

For  the  executive  session — Senators  Ballard,  Benedict,  Brown, 
Campbell,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty, 
Flint,  Gerdes,  Irwin,  King,  Lyon,  Maddux,  Mott,  Owens,  Purkitt, 
Shearer,   Strobridge,    Stuckenbruck,   and   Thompson — 23. 

Against  the  executive  session — Senators  Anderson,  Beban,  Ben- 
son, Birdsall,  Breed,  Butler,  Carr.  Duncan,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Luce, 
Rush,    Scott,    Slater,    Tyrrell,    and   Wolfe— 16. 


1 86  The  Woman-Juror  Bills 

While  the  Senate  was  in  executive  session,  Butler 
offered  a  second  amendment  very  similar  to  his  first 
which  had  been  voted  down.  The  second  Butler  amend- 
ment provided  that  "no  woman  shall  ever  be  required 
to  serve  as  a  juror  in  any  of  the  courts  of  this  State  if 
she  shall  file  in  writing  with  the  clerk  of  the  Superior 
Court  of  the  county  in  which  she  resides,  notice  that 
she  does  not  desire  to  serve  as  a  juror." 

This  second  Butler  amendment  was  defeated  with- 
out roll  call  being  demanded. 

Senator  Tyrrell  offered  an  amendment  which  pro- 
vided that  "any  female  summoned  as  a  juror  must  be 
excused  upon  her  request  to  the  court  to  be  excused." 

The  Tyrrell  amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of 
15  to  22.145 

Senator  Luce  moved  an  amendment  providing  "that 
the  court  may  excuse  all  women  from  serving  on  the 
jury  in  any  case  in  which  the  said  court  has  reason 
to  believe  that  the  testimony  about  to  be  adduced  will 
be  of  such  an  unusually  obscene  character  as  to  render 
it  unfit  for  a  jury  not  composed  wholly  of  men." 

The  Luce  amendment  was  defeated  by  viva  voce 
vote. 

Luce's  proposed  amendment  was  the  last  of  the  series 
offered.     The  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  followed. 

145  The   vote    on    the    Tyrrell   amendment   was: 
For  the  Tyrrell  amendment — Senators  Anderson,   Birdsall,  Breed, 
Butler,    Campbell,   Cohn,   Flaherty,   Gerdes,   King,   Luce,   Rush,    Sla- 
ter,  Strobridge,    Thompson,    and   Tyrrell — 15. 

Against  the  Tyrrell  amendment — Senators  Ballard,  Beban,  Ben- 
son, Brown,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Crowley,  Duncan,  Finn, 
Flint,  Irwin,  Jones,  Lyon,  Maddux,  Mott,  Owens,  Purkitt,  Scott, 
Shearer,    Stuckenbruck,    and   Wolfe — 22. 


The  Woman-Juror  Bills  187 

The  measure  was  defeated,  17  voting  for  it  and  20 
against  it.146 

After  the  defeat  of  Senate  Bill  597,  the  companion 
measure,  Senate  Bill  599,  was  allowed  to  remain  in 
committee. 

Those  who  held  that  women  should  be  placed  on  an 
equality  with  men  in  the  matter  of  jury  service,  however, 
continued  their  efforts  to  make  at  least  a  beginning 
toward  that  end. 

Downing,  in  the  Assembly,  had  introduced  a  Woman- 
Juror  bill  on  his  own  account  (Assembly  Bill  1074). 
The  measure  provided  that  juror  lists  should  contain 
the  names  of  men  and  women  in  equal  numbers.  The 
Assembly  amended  it  by  striking  out  the  words  "in 
equal  numbers."  As  the  bill  was  amended  it  provided 
that  juror  lists  should  contain  the  names  of  both  men 
and  women.     As  amended  the  bill  passed  the  Assembly 

146  The  vote  by  which  the  Woman  Juror  bill  (Senate  Bill  597) 
was  defeated  was  as   follows: 

For  the  bill — Senators  Anderson,  Beban,  Benson,  Breed,  Butler, 
Carr,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Jones,  Luce,  Lyon,  Rush,  Scott,  Slater, 
Thompson,   Tyrrell,    and   Wolfe — 17. 

Against  the  bill — Senators  Ballard,  Birdsall,  Brown,  Campbell, 
Chandler,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Crowley,  Duncan.  Flint,  Gerdes,  Irwin, 
King,  Maddux,  Mott,  Owens,  Purkitt,  Shearer,  Strobridge,  and 
Stuckenbruck — 20. 

Senator  Benedict  had  the  following  statement  regarding  his 
absence  from  the  Senate  chamber  when  the  vote  was  taken, 
printed  in  the  Journal:  "I  desire  to  state  that  had  I  been 
present  at  roll  call  on  final  passage  of  Senate  Bill  No.  597  I 
would  have  voted  'No.'  I  had  gone  to  my  committee  room  in 
accordance  with  previous  engagement  to  confer  with  the  Assistant 
City  Attorney  of  Los  Angeles,  believing  that  debate  on  the 
question  would  continue  so  long  that  recess  would  be  taken  and 
final  vote  had  in  the  afternoon.  Before  going,  however,  I  told 
Assistant  Sergeant-at-Arms  Newson  that  I  would  be  In  my  com- 
mittee room  and  that  he  should  call  me  in  event  that  the  Senate 
reached    a    roll    call." 

Kehoe  was  also  unavoidably  absent  from  the  chamber,  and 
he,  too,  had  left  word  with  an  assistant  sergeant-at-arms  that  he 
be  called  if  the  measure  came  to  vote  before  his  return.  But 
he   was   not  called. 


1 88  The  Woman-Juror  Bills 

by  a  vote  of  43  to  9.147     In  the  Senate,  however,  it  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  7  to  22.148 

147  The  vote  by  which  the  Downing  bill  passed  the  Assembly 
was: 

For  the  Downing-  bill — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Ashley,  Avey,  Bart- 
lett,  Benton,  Boude,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Burke,  Byrnes,  Conard, 
Downing,  Edwards,  L. ;  Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Gebhart,  Gelder, 
Harris,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R.;  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Kennedy,  Kramer, 
Lostutter,  Lyon,  Manning,  Marron,  McCray,  McDonald,  W.  A.; 
McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Phillips,  Rominger,  Ryan, 
Scott,  F.  C. ;  Shartel,  Sengler,  Wills,  Wishard,  and  Mr.  Speaker — 
43. 

Against  the  Downing  bill — Bruck,  Kerr,  Long,  Pettis,  Phelps, 
Quinn,   Ream,    Sharkey,    and  Wright,    T.   M. — 9. 

148  The  vote  by  which  the  Downing  bill  was  defeated  in  the 
Senate  was: 

For  the  Downing  bill — Anderson,  Butler,  Carr,  Finn,  Flaherty, 
Kehoe,    Wolfe— 7. 

Against  the  Downing  bill — Ballard,  Beban,  Benedict,  Benson, 
Campbell,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Duncan,  Gerdes,  Hans, 
Irwin,  Maddux,  Mott,  Owens,  Purkitt,  Shearer,  Slater,  Strobridge, 
Stuckenbruck,   Thompson,    Tyrrell — 22. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
Labor  and  the  Legislature. 

Since  the  overthrow  of  the  Southern  Pacific  machine 
in  1910,  much  progress  has  been  made  in  California  in 
so-called   labor   and   humanitarian   legislation. 

The  day's  work  for  women  at  gainful  labor  has  been 
limited  to  eight  hours ;  humane  restriction  has  been 
placed  upon  the  employment  of  children ;  the  risk  of 
life  and  limb  in  industry  has,  under  practical  workmen's 
compensation  acts,  been  made  a  fixed  charge  against 
the  industry  and  is  no  longer  borne  by  the  workers. 
Most  satisfactory  gains  have  been  made  in  other  labor 
reforms.149 

But  before  these  gains  could  be  made — and  this 
holds  true  of  moral  and  political  as  well  as  industrial 
reforms — the  "machine's''  strangle-hold  upon  the  State 
had  to  be  broken. 

Until  The  People  could  give  free  expression  of  their 
purposes  at  the  polls  they  could  not  break  this  strangle- 
hold. 

Such  expression  was  made  possible  by  direct-primary 
legislation. 

And  direct-primary  legislation  in  California  was  not 
secured  with  the  support,  but,  indeed,  with  the  decided 

149  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911"  and  of 
1913,    Chapters    on    Labor    Legislation. 


190  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

opposition,  of  men  who,  in  the  name  of  the  Union 
Labor  party,  sat  in  the  Legislature.150 

The  fight  for  this  bill  came  at  the  1909  session. 

The  opposition,  in  the  main,  labored  to  load  the 
measure  with  hampering  amendments.  Had  the  bill's 
opponents  succeeded  in  amending  the  act  into  ineffective- 
ness, the  "State  machine"  would  not  have  been  broken 
at  the  1910  elections.  There  would  have  been  no 
Woman's  Eight-Hour  law  passed  in  1911,  nor  Work- 
men's Compensation  act,  nor  any  of  the  other  so-called 
Labor    measures    which    have    become    laws. 

And  the  clearing  of  the  way  for  the  breaking  of  the 
"machine"  was  not  accomplished  with  the  support  of 
the  Union  Labor  members  of  Senate  and  Assembly,  but, 
in   the    majority   of   cases,   with   their    opposition. 

Abe  Ruef  in  his  confessions  is  quite  frank  as  to  the 
use  he  made  of  such  Union-Labor-Party  legislators  as 
he  had  a  hold  upon. 

"I  told  the  legislators,"  he  tells  us  in  his  confessions 
printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin,  July  6,  1912, 
''to  vote  on  all  labor  questions  and  legislation  directly 
involving  labor  interests  always  for  the  labor  side.  I 
told  them  on  all  other  questions  to  follow  the  Herrin 
program." 

Under  this  arrangement,  Herrin  was  evidently  well 
served.  Ruef  tells  us  in  the  same  paragraph  from  which 
the  above  is  quoted  that  "Herrin  was  appreciative.  He 
expressed  his  sense  of  obligation." 

150  See  Senate  and  Assembly  Journals  for  the  1909  session, 
"Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  and  files  of  San 
Francisco  Call  and  Sacramento  Bee  for  February,  1909,  also 
Sacramento    Bee    for    March,    1909. 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  191 

But  Labor,  under  this  arrangement,  got  nothing 
worth   while. 

To  be  sure,  during  the  Herrin  regime,  demagogues, 
riding  on  the  back  of  Labor,  made  gallery-bidding  plays 
in  support  of  "Seamen's  bills,"  "Full  Crew  bills"  and 
the  like,  just  as  they  gave  gallery-playing  support  to 
measures  favored  by  women,  but  in  no  case  did  such 
measures  become  laws  until  after  the  Southern  Pacific 
Company  had  been  kicked  out  of  the  government  of  the 
State,  and  the  "machine"  broken.  The  "machine"  was 
defeated  in  1910.  The  first  Legislature  in  which  Labor 
was  given  consideration  worth  while,  Labor  leaders  in 
a  position  to  know  tell  us,  was  that  of  1911,  the  session 
following   the    "machine's"   overthrow. 

Mr.  Paul  Scharrenberg,  secretary-treasurer  of  the 
California  State  Federation  of  Labor,  in  an  article151  re- 
viewing the  work  of  the  1915  session,  emphasized  this. 

"It  is  true,"  says  Mr.  Scharrenberg,  "that  in  a  com- 
parison of  results  achieved  this  (1915)  session  can 
hardly  be  placed  in  the  same  class  with  the  sessions  of 
1911  and  1913.  When  compared,  however,  with  the 
sessions  prior  to  1911,  the  1915  session  immediately 
takes  a  front  seat.  In  other  words,  Labor  in  California 
never  received  anything  'big'  or  'worth  while'  at  the 
hands  of  the  lawmakers  until  the  thirty-ninth  session 
(Session  of  19 11)" 

Nevertheless,  prior  to  1911,  Union  Labor  was — in 
name  at  least — well  represented  in  both  Houses. 

At  the  1909  session,  for  example,  no  less  than  seven 

151  Published  in  "Organized  Labor"  issue  of  May  15,  1915,  page 
2,  "Review  of  the  Forty-first  Session  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature." Also  published  in  "Labor  Clarion"  of  May  14,  1915,  and 
other  publications   devoted   to   the  cause  of  Organized   Labor. 


192  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

Senators  152  and  fifteen  Assemblymen  153  had  been  elected 
in  the  name  of  Union  Labor. 

A  group  of  seven  in  the  Senate  and  fifteen  in  the 
Assembly  is  sufficient  to  compel  consideration.  There 
was,  to  be  sure,  much  sound  and  fury  that  session  over 
so-called  "labor  measures,"  but  as  Mr.  Scharrenberg  has 
stated,  Labor  that  session  received  nothing  "big"  or 
"worth  while." 

The  records  made  by  Union  Labor  members  that 
session  on  measures  of  vital  interest  to  Labor,  such  as 
the  Direct  Primary  bill  and  the  Initiative  Constitutional 
amendment,  are  suggestive. 

In  the  case  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  the  purpose 
of  the  "machine"  element  was  to  amend  it  to  require 
either  a  majority  or  a  high  plurality  vote  for  nomina- 
tion. In  the  event  of  no  candidate  for  a  given  office 
receiving  a  majority  or  the  required  plurality,  the  nomi- 
nation was  to  be  made  by  a  nominating  convention  as 
under  the  old  convention  system.  With  such  a  pro- 
vision it  would  have  been  easy  for  the  "machine"  to 
introduce  a  large  number  of  candidates  at  the  primaries, 
thus  making  it  impracticable  for  any  one  of  them  to 
receive  a  majority  or  even  a  high  plurality  vote.  This 
would  have  thrown  nominations  into  a  convention. 
Thus,  while  the  State  would  have  had  a  Direct  Primary 
law,  it  would  have  been  practically  impossible  to  nomi- 
nate a  candidate  under  its  provisions. 

The   Senate   Committee   on   Election    Laws   decided 


152  Senators  Anthony,  Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Reily,  Welch  and 
Wolfe. 

153  Assemblymen  Beatty,  Beban,  Black,  Coghlan,  Cullen, 
Peeley,  Gerdes,  Hopkins,  Johnston,  Macauley,  Nelson,  O'Neill, 
Perine,    Pugh,    Silver. 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  193 

upon  such  amendments.  On  the  committee  were  three 
Senators  who  had  been  elected  in  the  name  of  Union 
Labor.  They  were  Wolfe,  Hartman,  and  Hare.  The 
three  supported  and  voted  for  the  proposed  amend- 
ments. 

Later,  when  the  bill  was  before  the  Senate,  five  of 
the  Union-Labor  Senators — Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Reily 
and  Wolfe — voted  for  a  policy  of  amendment  to  require 
a  high  percentage  plurality  vote  for  nomination  at  a 
Direct  Primary.  But  the  resolution  to  that  end  was 
defeated.  After  this  success,  the  friends  of  the  bill 
were  able  to  send  it  to  the  Assembly  without  hampering 
amendments. 

In  the  Assembly,  the  bill's  passage  was  complicated 
by  amendments  to  take  away  the  practical  plan,  pro- 
vided in  the  bill  as  it  had  passed  the  Senate,  of  giving 
The  People  opportunity  to  nominate  their  United  States 
Senators. 

These  amendments  went  into  the  bill  by  a  vote  of 
38  to  36.  Of  the  fifteen  Union  Labor  members, 
twelve  154  voted  for  the  amendments ;  one,  Hopkins,  did 
not  vote ;  two,  Gerdes  and  Silver,  voting  with  the  sup- 
porters of  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  opposed  the  amend- 
ments. Had  only  three  of  the  fifteen  Union  Labor  mem- 
bers voted  in  the  negative,  the  amendments  would  have 
been  defeated,  and  the  bill  passed  without  the  compli- 
cations which  followed. 

The  fight  was  resumed  in  the  Senate. 

In  the  Senate,  twenty  voted  for  concurrence  in  the 
Assembly    amendments    and    twenty    against.      Of    the 

ir.4  Beatty,    Beban,    Black,    Coghlan,    Cullen,    Feeley,    Johnston, 
Macauley,    Nelson,    O'Neill,    Perine,    Pugh. 


194  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

seven  Union  Labor  Senators,  six — Finn,  Hare,  Hartman, 
Reily,  Welch  and  Wolfe — voted  for  concurrence,  and 
only  one,  Anthony,  voted  against  concurrence.  Had 
even  two  of  the  seven  Union  Labor  Senators  voted 
against  the  Assembly  amendments,  the  amendments 
would  have  been  defeated.  And  yet,  here  was  a 
measure  in  the  passage  of  which  in  the  most  practical 
form  possible,  Union  Labor  men,  in  common  with  all 
good  citizens,  were  vitally  interested. 

The  friends  of  the  Direct  Primary  could  not  over- 
come the  opposition.  But  by  contesting  every  opposing 
move  of  their  opponents,  they  succeeded  in  arousing 
public  opinion  to  such  an  extent  that  when  the  bill's 
entrenched  opponents  finally  got  the  whip  hand,  and 
could  have  worked  their  will  with  the  measure,  they 
did  not,  in  the  face  of  public  opinion,  dare  amend  it 
into  ineffectiveness.  But  during  the  weeks  the  contest 
between  the  two  factions  was  carried  on,  the  friends  of 
Direct  Primary  legislation  could  count  dependably  on 
their  side  only  three  of  the  twenty-two  Union  Labor 
members  of  the  two  Houses.155 

The  record  made  by  the  Union  Labor  State  Senators 
who  sat  in  the  1909  session  on  the  Initiative  amendment 
is  also  suggestive. 

This  amendment  had  the  endorsement  of  Union 
Labor.  But  in  spite  of  Labor's  endorsement,  a  Senator 
who  had  been  elected  with  the  nomination  of  the  Union 
Labor  party,  Wolfe,  led  the  fight  against  the  amend- 
ment.    Hartman,  another  Union  Labor  member,  joined 


156  A  full  account  of  the  contest  over  the  Direct  Primary 
bill  will  be  found  in  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909." 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  195 

Wolfe  in  voting  against  it.  Finn,  another  Union  Labor 
member,  was  not  on  hand  to  vote  for  the  amendment 
when  his  vote  was  needed.156 

Effective  railroad  regulation  was  defeated  in  the 
Senate  at  the  1909  session.  There  were  two  regulatory 
measures,  the  Stetson  bill  and  the  Wright  bill. 

The  former  was  regarded  as  effective,  the  other  as 
ineffective.  The  Senate  selected  the  Wright  bill  over 
the  Stetson  bill  by  a  vote  of  22  to  18.  Every  one  of  the 
seven  Union  Labor  Senators  voted  for  the  Wright  bill 
and  against  the  Stetson  bill.  Had  three  of  them — less 
than  half — voted  for  the  Stetson  bill,  the  effective  and 
not  the  ineffective  Railroad  Regulation  bill  would  have 
been  enacted  at  the  1909  session. 

On  moral  issues,  the  vote  of  the  Union  Labor  party 
legislators  has  been  as  uncompromisingly  against  the 
"anti-machine"  element. 

Thus,  at  the  1909  session,  all  of  the  seven  Union 
Labor  Party  Senators  voted  against  the  Local  Option 
bill.  Seven  Senators  of  the  forty  voted  against  the 
anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  that  year.  Five  of  them — 
Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Reily  and  Wolfe — had  been 
elected  with  Union  Labor  Party  nominations.  In  the 
Assembly,  ten  voted  against  the  bill.  Eight  of  the  ten — 
Beban,  Black,  Coghlan,  Cullen,  Hopkins,  Macauley, 
O'Neill  and  Pugh — had  been  elected  with  Union  Labor 
Party  nominations. 

With  the  breaking  of  the  grip  of  the  "machine," 
all  the  reforms,  including  humanitarian  and  labor, 
which  the  "machine"  element  had  succeeded  in  defeat- 

156  See    "Story    of    the   California    Legislature    of    1909." 


196  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

ing  in  1909,  were  realized.  The  humanitarian  and 
labor  reforms  came  with  the  others  as  a  matter  of 
course.  But  when  the  saloon  interests,  and  the 
gambling  interests  and  the  corporation  interests  were — 
with  the  assistance  of  legislators  who  were  elected  with 
Union  Labor  Party  nominations — all-powerful  at  Sacra- 
mento, Labor,  to  quote  Secretary  Scharrenberg  of  the 
State  Federation  of  Labor,  "received  nothing  'big'  or 
'worth   while.'  " 

It  was  only  after  the  power  of  saloonkeeper,  gambler 
and  public  service  corporation  had  been  broken,  that 
the  enactment  of  beneficial  labor  measures  became 
possible. 

One  of  the  most  suggestive  features  of  Union 
Labor's  part  in  shaping  legislation  has  been  the  opposi- 
tion of  Union  Labor  representatives  to  measures  aimed 
at  vice  interests,157  and  to  members  who  have  supported 
such    measures. 

Senator  Kehoe  of  Humboldt,  for  example,  is  an 
effective  supporter  of  labor  measures.  During  his 
years  of  service  in  Senate  and  Assembly  he  has  been 
able  to  do  much  for  Labor.  Senator  Kehoe  has  also 
effectively  combated  vice   interests. 

In  spite  of  Senator  Kehoe's  service  in  the  cause  of 

157  In  1913,  when  the  University  "Dry  Zone"  bill  was  before 
the  Legislature,  the  Santa  Clara  County  Building  Trades  Council 
and  the  San  Jose  Labor  Council  petitioned  the  Legislature  to 
defeat  it.  As  has  been  seen,  the  Los  Angeles  labor  organizations 
at  the  1915  session  telegraphed  Assemblyman  Downing  urging 
him  to  support  the  notorious  Bruck  constitutional  amendment, 
to  compensate  winemen,  distillers  and  brewers,  for  any  loss 
they  may  sustain  through  Prohibition  legislation.  See  page  139. 
But  when  Downing  offered  an  amendment  to  compensate  working- 
men  who  might  be  injured  by  Prohibition  legislation,  the  sup- 
porters of  the  Bruck  measure  voted  down  the  Downing  amend- 
ment. The  liquor  interest  had  Labor's  support,  but  Labor  did 
not   have    the    support   of    the   Liquor   Interests. 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  197 

Labor,  however,  Union  Labor,  at  the  1912  elections, 
opposed  Senator  Kehoe's  return  to  the  Legislature.  The 
saloon  interests  opposed  him  also.  So  effective  was  this 
combined  opposition  that  Kehoe  was  all  but  defeated. 
Fortunately  for  the  cause  of  Labor,  however,  Senator 
Kehoe  was  not  defeated.  He  has  continued  one  of 
Labor's  most  dependable  supporters.  He  has,  too, 
continued  his  opposition  to  saloon,  gambling  and  brothel 
interests.158 

Senator  E.  E.  Grant  is  another  member  of  the  Legis- 
lature who  advocated  labor  measures  and  at  the  same 
time  supported  measures  aimed  at  underworld  interests. 

Senator  Grant  also  found  Union  Labor  politicians 
arrayed  against  him.  During  the  Wolfe-Grant  Recall 
campaign  the  false  report  was  circulated  that  Senator 
Grant  had  opposed  beneficent  labor  measures ;  that  he 
was  a  foe  of  Labor.159    These  reports,  in  spite  of  denials 


158  Senator  Kehoe's  service  to  Labor  is  recognized  by  labor 
leaders  of  the  type  of  Paul  Scharrenberg.  Mr.  Scharrenberg 
publishes  the  following  estimate  of  Senator  Kehoe:  "Fair,  hu- 
mane, efficient.  A  lawyer  by  profession,  yet  a  'Man'  in  every 
sense  of  the  word.  Supported  practically  all  Labor  bills.  Highest 
type    of    lawmaker." 

159  The  injustice  of  these  attacks  called  forth  the  following 
defense  from  Secretary  Paul  Scharrenberg,  who  knew  Grant's 
record    in    the    Legislature: 

"San    Francisco,    Cal.,    July    17,    1914. 
"Editor   Organized    Labor, 

"1122    Mission    Street,    San    Francisco,    Cal. 
"Dear   Sir  and   Brother: 

"My  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  those  persons 
who  are  interested  in  circulating  petitions  for  the  recall  of  State 
Senator  Edwin  E.  Grant  have  spread  the  rumor  that  Senator 
Grant's   record    upon    labor   measures    is   not   what    it    ought    to    be. 

"As  a  matter  of  simple  justice,  permit  me  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  no  bad  votes  are  recorded  against  Senator 
Grant  in  the  official  labor  record  of  members  of  our  last  Legis- 
lature. 

"In  response  to  certain  questions  submitted  to  Senator  Grant 
prior  to  his  election  certain  promises  were  made  to  Labor. 
Every    promise    made    by    Senator    Grant    was    fulfilled    and    any 


198  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

from  labor  leaders  in  a  position  to  know  the  facts, 
unquestionably   influenced   many   against   him. 

Grant  had  the  opposition  of  the  so-called  Union 
Labor  members  of  the  Senate.  The  injustice  of  their 
attitude  called  forth  sharp  retort  from  Senator  Benson 
on  the  occasion  of  Senator  Wolfe's  attempted  reply  to 
his  critics. 

"You  men  who  come  here  representing  Labor,"  said 
Benson,  "you  men  who  are  up  here  because  the  laboring 
people  have  sent  you  here,  what  objection  did  you  have 
to  the  record  of  Senator  Grant?  In  the  last  session, 
I  stood  upon  this  floor,  fighting  the  battles  of  Labor, 
not  because  you  gentlemen  were  for  Labor,  not  because 
there  were  Labor  people  in  my  vicinity — there  are  more 
people  that  are  against  Labor  than  there  are  Labor 
people  there — but  because  I  thought  those  votes  were 
right.  I  went  to  the  bat  on  labor  propositions  and 
I  put  myself  out  of  sympathy  with  those  men  who  were 
naturally  friends  of  mine  who  could  not  understand 
my  viewpoint,  but  in  every  fight  here  in  the  interests 
of  Labor,  Senator  Grant  was  fighting  by  my  side.  His 
labor  record  was  clean  and  straight.  Why  are  you 
gentlemen  sitting  here  in  the  attitude  of  opposition  to 
Senator  Grant?  Is  it  because  he  did  anything  wrong 
for  Labor?  No;  it  is  because  you  disagree  with  his 
stand  upon  the  Redlight  Abatement  bill,  and  that  is  the 


one  who   states   that   the  proposed  recall   is   fathered  or  backed   by 
organized    labor   should    be    promptly    silenced. 

"Trusting  that  you  will  give  this  communication  publicity 
in  the  next  issue  of  your  valued  publication,  I  remain,  frater- 
nally yours,  Paul  Scharrenberg,  Secretary-Treasurer  California 
State    Federation    of    Labor." 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  199 

reason  that  Senator  Grant  was  recalled  and  that  is  the 
reason  that  Senator  Wolfe  occupies  his  seat  to-day."  160 

On  the  other  hand,  when  a  member  of  the  Legis- 
lature has  opposed  Labor  measures,  but  has  not  seri- 
ously offended  the  liquor  interests,  we  find  the  liquor 
interests  rallying  to  his  support  to  meet  Labor's  attacks 
upon  him. 

This  was  interestingly  shown  in  1914,  when,  largely 
with  the  support  of  Labor,  an  attempt  was  made  to  re- 
call Senator  Owens  of  Contra  Costa. 

Union  Labor  leaders  declared  that  Owens  had,  at 
the  1913  session,  broken  his  promise  to  support  certain 

160  Senator  Chandler,  commenting  upon  Grant's  recall,  put 
the   matter  in   a   different   way  but   quite   as    effectively: 

"Prior  to  this  session  of  the  Legislature,"  said  Senator  Chand- 
ler, "there  was  a  recall  election  held  in  the  Nineteenth  Sena- 
torial District  in  San  Francisco.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  petition 
for  that   recall,   and   it   reads  something   like   this: 

"  'The  removal  of  Edwin  E.  Grant  from  said  office  is  sought 
by  us  on  the  grounds  to-wit:  That  as  a  member  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Legislature  since  January  6th,  1913,  he  has  voted  against 
the    wishes    of    his    constituents.' 

"Now  I  construe  that  to  mean  that  every  vote  that  Senator 
Grant  took  during  that  time  was  against  the  wishes  of  his 
constituents.  Further  along  in  the  document  it  states:  That 
on  April  17th,  1913,  he  voted  for  Senate  Bill  384,  known  as  the 
"Dry  Fair  bill,"  '  which  proposed  to  keep  saloons  out  of  the  Fair. 
'That  on  April  14th,  1913,  he  voted  against  Senate  Bill  No.  534.' 
This  bill  provides  that  no  marriage  could  be  solemnized  until  at 
least  five  days  after  issuance  of  license  unless  in  an  extra- 
ordinary or  emergency  case.  Then  further  on:  'That  on  April 
9th,  1913,  he  voted  against  Senate  Bill  No.  1007.  This  bill  pro- 
vided that  school  books  compiled,  printed  and  published  in  Cali- 
fornia, when  equally  as  good  and  at  the  same  or  less  cost,  shall 
be   used    to    the    exclusion   of   all    others.' 

"In  the  time  that  I  have  had  to  look  up  the  measures  that 
were  voted  on  during  the  session  of  1913,  I  find  such  measures 
as  these:  'The  Red  Light  bill,'  'Workmen's  Compensation,' 
'Weights  and  Measures,'  'Immigration  and  Housing,'  'Eight  Hours 
for  Women,'  'Closing  of  Saloons  from  Two  to  Six  a.  m.,'  'Alien 
Land  act,'  'Full  Crew  act,'  'Minimum  Wages  for  Women,'  all 
of    those    measures,    Senator    Grant    voted    for.     *     *     *     *     * 

"I  assume,  from  the  nature  of  that  recall,  that  we  had  a 
right  to  believe  they  (The  People  of  the  Nineteenth  Senatorial 
District)  opposed  all  of  the  measures  that  I  have  mentioned, 
and   that   they   would   rather   they   would    not    have   been    enacted." 


200  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

labor  measures.  The  wine  and  other  liquor  interests 
rallied  to  Owens'  defenses.     Owens  was  not  recalled.161 

With  few  exceptions,  those  who  have  given  Labor 
effective  support  in  the  Legislature — brought  results — 
have  opposed  vice  interests.  At  former  sessions,  for 
example,  Labor  never  had  more  effective  champions 
on  the  floor  of  the  State  Senate  than  Senators  Shana- 
han  and  Caminetti.  Both  Shanahan  and  Caminetti 
strongly   opposed  saloon  and  vice  interests. 

When  at  the  1913  session,  for  example,  the  bill  to 
close  saloons  from  1  to  5  in  the  morning  was  before  the 
Senate,  it  had,  with  the  exception  of  Senator  Grant, 
who  supported  it,  the  opposition  of  all  the  so-called 
Union  Labor  members  from  San  Francisco.  Finally 
Senator  Finn  of  San  Francisco  offered  an  amendment 
to  exclude  cities  from  its  provisions.  This  brought 
caustic    reply    from    Senator    Caminetti. 

"Don't  you  think,  Senator  Finn,"  demanded  Cami- 
netti, "the  people  of  San  Francisco  can  drink  enough 

i6i  The  following-  Is  taken  from  a  statement  of  the  defeat  of 
the  Owens  Recall  which  was  furnished  the  press  by  the  Cali- 
fornia   State    Federation    of    Labor: 

"The  anti-labor  spirit  of  the  grape  growers  was  even  reflected 
in  the  precinct  at  Winehaven,  where  the  employees  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Wine  Association  voted  three  to  one  against  the  recall. 
The  grape  growers  and  the  wine  nabobs  stabbed  Labor  in  the 
back,  but  at  the  November  election  they  will  doubtless  expect 
Labor's  support  in  defeating  the  pending  initiative  measure  which 
provides     for     State-wide     Prohibition. 

"An  incident  which  will  help  to  explain  the  'line-up'  of  cer- 
tain influential  factors  in  politics  took  place  at  San  Rafael  on 
election  day.  Both  the  recognized  Republican  and  Democratic 
bosses  of  Marin  county  were  active  workers  for  Owens.  The 
Republican  boss  held  forth  at  Julius  Levy's  Wholesale  Liquor 
Store,  from  whence  he  directed  the  movements  of  twelve  modern 
motor  cars  which  were  stationed  in  front  of  said  store.  The 
Democratic  boss  was  in  charge  of  the  most  stylish  car  bringing 
the    faithful    to    the    polls. 

"Nevertheless,  it  appears  as  if  many  sincere  and  well  meaning 
voters  supported  Owens  because  they  had  been  led  to  believe 
that  the  liquor  interests  and  the  dive-keepers  of  San  Francisco 
were   behind   Labor  in  the   fight   for  his  recall." 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  201 

whisky  in  the  remaining  twenty  hours  to  keep  up  her 
record   for  lasciviousness?" 

Finn  started  to  make  reply  about  what  he  called  the 
unfairness  of  his  interrogator,  when  Caminetti  thun- 
dered : 

"The  liquor  interests  of  this  State  are  going  too 
far  when  they  enter  protest  against  a  law  as  mild  and 
reasonable  as  this.  If  they  cannot  agree  to  close  their 
saloons  between  1  a.  m.  and  5  a.  m.,  then  it  may  be- 
come necessary  to  say  to  them,  'you  can't  sell  at  all.' 
I  wish  to  give  warning  to  these  people  in  the  name  of 
God  and  liberty,  let  our  boys  and  girls  be  protected 
from  the  hell-holes  of  vice  for  at  least  four  hours  in 
the  twenty-four." 

In  the  1915  Senate,  the  cause  of  Labor  had  depend- 
able representatives  in  such  men  as  Benson  of  Santa 
Clara,  Luce  of  San  Diego,  Brown,  Butler  and  Carr 
of  Los  Angeles,  Duncan  of  Butte  and  Kehoe  of  Hum- 
boldt. In  the  Assembly  such  men  as  Downing  of  Los 
Angeles,  Harris  of  Bakersfield,  Judson  of  San  Diego, 
Kramer  of  Santa  Barbara,  Wright  of  Santa  Clara, 
gave  effective  support  to  humanitarian  and  labor 
measures.  These  men,  regardless  of  how  their  action 
might  affect  their  own  business  or  political  interests, 
voted  for  labor  measures.  But  such  dependable  sup- 
porters of  labor  and  humanitarian  measures  are  the 
opponents — not  the  supporters — of  the  gambling,  saloon 
and  other  underworld  elements. 

The  enactment  of  beneficial  labor  and  humanitarian 
legislation  at  the  1911  and  1913  sessions  was  due,  not 
to  the  efforts  of  the  so-called  Union  Labor  group  from 


202  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

San  Francisco,  but  to  men  of  the  type  of  Kehoe, 
Benson,  Caminetti,  Shanahan,  who  supported  such 
measures,  not  for  political  advantage,  but  from  princi- 
ple. 

Much  was  done  at  the  1911  and  1913  sessions  to 
curb  underworld  activities,  to  bring  predatory  interests 
to  account,  and  to  improve  the  conditions  of  Labor. 

But  at  the  1915  session,  when  reactionary  interests 
showed  themselves  strong  enough  to  prevent  the 
strengthening  of  the  Local  Option  law,  to  block  the 
passage  of  a  University  Dry  Zone  bill 162  and  to  defeat 
the  practical  Insurance  Rating  bill,  Labor  lobbyists 
found  themselves  quite  as  ineffective  as  were  the  sup- 
porters of  anti-vice  and  protective  measures.  Labor 
representatives,  far  from  getting  their  measures  through 
the  Legislature,  experienced  the  greatest  difficulty  in 
even  getting  some  of  the  more  important  of  them  in- 
troduced. 

As  a  consequence,  to  quote  Secretary  Scharrenberg, 
"in  a  comparison  of  results  achieved  (for  Labor)   this 

162  An  amusing-  illustration  of  the  importance  in  which  the 
so-called  "Labor  Members"  hold  the  saloons  was  given  when 
the  Owens  bill  (Senate  Bill  1203)  to  prohibit  the  limiting  of  the 
number  of  apprenticeships  was  before  the  Senate.  No  measure 
was  resisted  more  determinedly  by  Labor.  Senator  Scott  of 
San  Francisco  was  in  the  midst  of  a  vigorous  argument  against 
this  Owens  bill,  when  he  was  interrupted  by  Owens.  Owens 
inquired  pertinently  how  long  it  had  been  since  Scott  had 
changed  his  attitude  on  the  bill.  Scott's  reply  indicated  that 
when  the  University  Dry  Zone  bill  was  before  the  Senate,  he 
had  agreed  with  Senator  Owens  that  he  (Scott)  would  vote  for 
Owens'  anti-Labor  Apprenticeship  bill,  provided  Owens  would 
vote  against  the  University  Dry  Zone  bill.  Owens  voted  against 
the  "Dry  Zone"  bill,  his  vote  being  sufficient  to  defeat  that 
measure.  But  when  it  came  to  Scott  voting  for  the  anti-Labor 
Apprenticeship  bill,  Scott  "welched."  Owens  released  him  from 
his  obligation.  Scott  gave  as  his  reason  for  making  the  indi- 
cated arrangement  with  Owens  that  he  (Scott)  was  in  a  "terrible 
jam"  on  account  of  the  "Dry  Zone"  bill;  that  he  was  willing  to 
promise  anything.  But,  the  danger  past,  the  "jam"  broken, 
Scott  found  himself  in  another  "jam"  because  of  his  arrange- 
ment with  Owens. 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  203 

(1915)   session  can  hardly  be  placed  in  the  same  class 
with  the  sessions  of   1911  and  1913." 

And  in  future,  should  Legislature  ever  convene  in 
California  at  which  the  ban  can  be  taken  off  racetrack 
gambling,  at  which  pro-liquor  measures  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  Bruck  amendment  can  be  put  through,  and 
handicap  put  upon  the  work  of  the  State  Railroad 
Commission,  that  session  will  see  the  repeal  or  modi- 
fication of  the  beneficial  labor  and  humanitarian  laws 
which  have  gone  on  the  statute  books  since  the 
underworld-corporation  "machine"  was  broken  in  1910. 
So-called  Union  Labor  members  who  when  the  "ma- 
chine" controlled  were,  in  spite  of  their  numbers, 
powerless  to  put  pro-labor  legislation  on  the  statute 
books,  will  be  as  impotent  to  prevent  pro-labor  legisla- 
tion being  struck  off  the  statute  books  if  reactionary 
underworld  and  corporation  interests  should  ever  again 
secure  control.163 


163  The  significant  records  made  by  Union  Labor  members  on 
so-called  "reform"  measures  is  shown  in  a  table  of  votes  on  such 
measures  considered  at  the  1907  Assembly.  The  table  was  pre- 
pared by  Mr.  Charles  R.  Detrick.  The  measures  included  covered 
attempts  made  that  session  to  outlaw  racetrack  gambling,  regu- 
late railroads,  simplify  the  election  laws,  etc.  Mr.  Detrick  graded 
the  records  made  on  these  measures,  numbering  the  best  record 
No.  1  and  so  on  down  to  the  poorest  record,  No.  79,  there  being 
but  79  members  in  the  1907  Assembly.  Mr.  Detrick's  rating  of 
fourteen  of  the  fifteen  Union  Labor  members  of  the  1907  Assem- 
bly was  as  follows:  Thompson,  of  San  Francisco,  Number  62; 
Boyle,  63;  Vogel,  65;  Pratessa,  66;  Hartman,  68;  Kahlnan,  69; 
Strohl,  71;  Wilson,  72;  Barry,  73;  Beckett,  74;  Kelly,  76;  Beban, 
77;    Toomey,    78;    Cullen,    79. 

The  fifteenth  member  elected  with  Union  Labor  nomination, 
Lieutenant-Governor  John  M.  Eshleman;  on  the  other  hand,  sup- 
ported and  fought  for  reform  measures  throughout  the  session. 
Eshleman,  at  the  1907  session,  by  insisting  upon  his  anti-Racetrack 
gambling  law  being  given  consideration,  placed  the  opening  wedge 
for  the  eventually  successful  fight  against  the  gamblers. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment. 

The  legislative  program  adopted  for  1915  by  the 
State  Federation  of  Labor  set  forth  that  "The  State 
Federation  of  Labor  will  oppose  any  measure  providing 
for  the  appointment  of  judges  or  to  lengthen  their  term 
of  office." 

Mr.  Paul  Scharrenberg,  secretary-treasurer  of  the 
Federation,  in  his  review  of  the  work  of  the  1915  ses- 
sion, includes  under  the  classification,  "Some  Things 
'Put  Over'  Despite  the  Protest  of  Organized  Labor," 
"A  Constitutional  Amendment  was  submitted  to  a  vote 
of  the  people  aiming  to  lengthen  the  terms  of  Superior 
Judges  from  six  to  twelve  years." 

The  constitutional  amendment  to  which  Mr.  Schar- 
renberg refers  was  introduced  by  Senator  Finn  of  San 
Francisco.  It  was  known  as  Senate  Constitutional 
Amendment  No.  2.  Senator  Finn  has  been  identified 
with  the  Union  Labor  Party  movement  at  San  Fran- 
cisco from  its  beginning,  having  served  as  a  police 
commissioner  under  Mayor  Schmitz,  having  been  elect- 
ed sheriff  on  the  Union  Labor  ticket,  and  being  twice 
sent  to  the  State  Senate  with  Union  Labor  support. 

Senator  Finn,  despite  the  protest  of  Organized  La- 
bor, was  most  active  in  "putting  over"  his  amendment. 
In  this  he  had  the  undivided  support  of  the  other  Union- 
Labor  members  of  the  San  Francisco  Legislative  dele- 
gation, not  only  in  the  Senate  but  in  the  Assembly.    The 


The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment    205 

details  of  the  ratification  of  this  amendment  are  most 
illuminating. 

As  the  amendment  was  originally  introduced,  and  as 
it  was  adopted  by  the  Senate,  it  not  only  increased  the 
term  of  Supreme  Judges  to  be  elected  in  future  from 
six  to  twelve  years,  but  it  gave  a  twelve-year  term  to 
Superior  Judges  who,  in  1914,  had  been  elected  for  six- 
year  terms.  By  a  political  coincidence,  at  the  1914 
election  a  number  of  police  judges  at  San  Francisco  had 
been  advanced  from  the  police  courts  to  the  Superior 
Bench. 

The  amendment,  from  the  standpoint  of  Union- 
Labor,  whose  policy  is  to  resist  extension  of  the  terms 
of  judges,  was  all  wrong. 

From  the  standpoint  of  those  who  would  have  judi- 
cial terms  made  longer,  it  was  only  partly  wrong. 
These,  while  believing  in  the  twelve-year  term  for  Su- 
perior Judges,  hesitated  at  giving  judges  who  had  been 
elected  to  serve  for  six  years,  twelve-year  terms.  Much 
as  advocates  of  long  terms  for  judges  wished  to  see 
the  tenure  made  longer,  the  cost  of  the  change  pro- 
vided in  the  Finn  amendment  was  regarded  as  too  high. 

But  the  San  Francisco  Union-Labor  members  re- 
sisted all  attempts  to  have  the  amendment  limited  to 
the  terms  of  judges  to  be  elected  in  the  future.  And 
for  a  time  they  were  successful. 

The  Senate  adopted  the  amendment 164  just  as  Sen- 
ator Finn  had  introduced  it.  Senator  Carr  of  Los  An- 
geles, however — the  rank  and  file  of  labor  will  observe 
that  Senator  Carr  is  from  Los  Angeles — held  the  amend- 


i«4  The  more  important  votes  will  be  found  in  the  tables  in  the 
appendix. 


206    The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment 

ment  up  on  a  motion  to  reconsider.  Senator  Finn  re- 
sisted reconsideration,  although  such  motions  are  not 
usually  opposed.  But  Senator  Carr,  in  spite  of  Senator 
Finn's  opposition,  forced  a  rehearing.  That  is  all  he 
did  get.  An  attempt  to  amend  out  the  objectionable 
features  failed.  The  amendment  as  originally  intro- 
duced was  then  adopted  by  a  vote  of  27  to  13.165 

Of  that  vote,  two  details  should  not  be  lost  sight  of : 

( 1 )  Twenty-seven  votes  are  required  for  the  adop- 
tion of  a  constitutional  amendment  in  the  Senate. 

(2)  The  seven  Union-Labor  members  from  San 
Francisco — Beban,  Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Gerdes, 
Scott  and  Wolfe — voted  for  the  amendment. 

Had  any  one  of  the  seven  voted  against  it,  it  would 
have  received  twenty-six  votes  only,  which  were  not 
enough  for  its  adoption.  The  amendment  would  not 
then  have  been  "put  over"  in  face  of  the  objections  of 
Organized  Labor.166 

Furthermore,  State  Senator  Grant's  legislative  rec- 
ord indicates  that  he  would  have  opposed  the  policy  of 
Senator  Finn's  amendment. 

Had  Senator  Grant  occupied  the  seat  from  which 
he  had  been  recalled  and  which   Senator  Wolfe   occu- 


165  The  final  vote  on  the  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment  was 
as   follows: 

For  Finn's  amendment — Anderson,  Ballard,  Beban,  Benson, 
Breed,  Campbell,  Cogswell,  Cohn,  Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Gerdes, 
Hans,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Lyon,  Maddux,  Mott,  Owens,  Purkitt,  Rush, 
Scott,    Shearer,    Slater,    Strobridge,    Stuckenbruck,    and    Wolfe — 27. 

Against  Finn's  amendment — Benedict,  Birdsall,  Brown,  Butler, 
Carr,  Chandler,  Duncan,  Flint,  Irwin,  King,  Luce,  Thompson,  and 
Tyrrell— 13. 

The  names  of  the  San  Francisco  members  are  printed  in 
black  letters. 

ice  Every  member  of   the  Senate  voted  on  the  amendment. 


The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment    207 

pied,  Grant  would  to  a  certainty  have  voted  against  the 
Finn  measure.     This  would  have  meant  its  defeat. 

But,  as  it  was,  the  amendment,  with  Senator  Wolfe 
and  the  other  six  San  Francisco  members  voting  for  it, 
received  twenty-seven  votes,  which  were  enough  for  its 
adoption. 

In  the  Assembly,  opposition  to  the  amendment  con- 
tinued. The  Assembly  Committee  on  Constitutional 
Amendments  recommended  that  the  provisions  extend- 
ing the  terms  of  incumbents  be  struck  out.  But  the 
San  Francisco  (Union  Labor)  members  secured  a  mi- 
nority committee  recommendation  that  the  amendment 
be  adopted  as  it  had  come  from  the  Senate.  And  the 
San  Francisco  delegation,167  with  a  block  of  twelve 
votes,168  forced  the  Assembly  to  accept  the  minority 
report. 

Members  from  outside  San  Francisco  who  are  not 
in  sympathy  with  the  political — and  moral,  for  that  mat- 

167  Held  by  certain  labor  leaders  to  be  Labor's  dependable  rep- 
resentatives. 

168  Marron,  the  thirteenth  San  Francisco  member,  was  absent. 
The  vote  on  the  committee  report  was  as  follows,  the  names 
of  the  members  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  being  in  black 
type: 

For  the  minority  report  and  in  favor  of  giving  Superior 
Judges  now  on  the  bench  six  years  in  addition  to  the  terms 
for  which  they  have  been  elected — Anderson,  Ashley,  Beck,  Bruck, 
Burke,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Chamberlin,  Collins,  Ellis,  Encell,  Fergu- 
son, Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Harris.  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson, 
Kennedy,  Kerr,  Lyon,  Manning,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W. 
A.;  McPherson,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Rigdon,  Rodgers,  Ryan, 
Satterwhite,    Schmidt,    Scott,    F.    C;    Tabler,    and    Widenmann — 35. 

Against  the  minority  report,  and  against  giving  Superior 
Judges  the  extra  six  years — Arnerich,  Avey,  Bartlett,  Benton, 
Boude,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Cary,  Downing, 
Fish,  Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Judson,  Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter, 
McCray,  McKnight,  Pettis,  Phelps,  Quinn,  Rominger,  Scott,  C.  E. ; 
Scott,  L.  D. ;  Sharkey,  Shartel,  Sisson,  Spengler,  Wills,  Wishard, 
Wright,    H.    W.,    and    Wright,    T.    M.— 32. 

Take  the  San  Francisco  names  from  those  who  voted  for  the 
minority  report,  and  note  the  effect  of  the  San  Francisco  vote  on 
legislation. 


208    The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment 

ter — ideals  and  standards  of  that  community,  did  not 
hesitate  to  express  their  opinions  of  the  amendment. 

Hawson  of  Fresno  stated  that  he  could  imagine 
nothing  more  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  decency  than 
to  have  San  Francisco  Superior  Judges  who  had  been 
elected  for  six-year  terms  asking  to  have  the  period  of 
the  incumbency  extended  to  twelve  years. 

McKnight  humorously  referred  to  the  mingling  of 
oil  and  water  on  the  part  of  the  San  Francisco  delega- 
tion, the  two  alleged  factions  thereof  having  united  in 
the  scheme  to  double  the  terms  of  the  incumbents  of 
the  San  Francisco  Superior  Bench. 

Brown  of  San  Mateo,  denouncing  judges  who  cam- 
paign "in  saloons  and  chippy  dance  halls,"  stated  that 
he  would  favor  enactment  of  a  law  to  make  it  a  felony 
for  candidates  for  the  bench  to  campaign  at  all. 

Other  members  pointed  out  that  were  the  amend- 
ment to  be  submitted  to  the  electors,  incumbent  Supe- 
rior Judges  could  very  profitably  raise  a  campaign  fund 
of  $100,000  to  secure  its  ratification. 

A  majority  of  the  members  voting  was  enough  to 
adopt  the  minority  report.  But  to  submit  the  amend- 
ment to  the  electors  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  Assembly 
— fifty-four  votes — was  required.  The  San  Francisco 
members  could  force  acceptance  of  the  minority  report. 

They  could  not  force  adoption  of  the  Finn  measure 
as  it  had  come  from  the  Senate.  It  was  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  30  to  35.1G9 


169  The  vote  by  which  the  Finn  amendment  was  defeated  in 
the  Assembly  was  as  follows,  the  names  of  the  San  Francisco 
members   being   printed    in   black   type: 

For  the  Finn  amendment — Ashley,  Beck,  Bruck,  Burke,  Byrnes, 
Canepa,  Chamberlin,   Chenoweth,    Collins,   Encell,   Ferguson,    Godsil, 


The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment    209 

The  measure  came  up  again  a  few  days  later  on  a 
motion  for  reconsideration.  The  San  Francisco  mem- 
bers had  by  this  time  decided  they  would,  to  get  the 
amendment  through,  permit  the  provision  to  extend 
the  terms  of  incumbents  of  the  Superior  Bench  to  be 
eliminated.  Accordingly,  San  Francisco  members  who 
had  contended  three  days  before  that  to  exclude  incum- 
bent judges  from  the  benefits  of  a  doubled  term  would 
take  the  very  heart  out  of  the  amendment,  now  plead 
with  the  Assembly  to  make  those  very  changes. 

Members  from  outside  San  Francisco  who  would 
have  the  proceedings  of  the  Legislature  kept  above  the 
grade  of  a  South-of-Market-Street  joke,  were  at  first 
amazed  and  then  indignant  at  what  they  termed  trifling 
with  the  Assembly.170  But  the  block  of  San  Francisco 
votes  was  once  more  too  much  for  them.  A  majority 
vote  was   sufficient  to  amend  the  measure.     With   the 


Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Kennedy,  Kerr,  Lyon,  McDonald,  J.  J.; 
McDonald,  W.  A.;  Manning,  Phillips,  Prendergast,  Ream,  Rigdon, 
Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Schmitt,  Widenmann  and  Young 
—30. 

Against  the  Finn  amendment — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Bartlett, 
Benton,  Boude,  Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Cary, 
Downing,  Edwards,  L.;  Edwards,  R.  G. ;  Fish,  Gebhart,  Harris, 
Hawson,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Judson,  Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter,  MeCray, 
McKnight,  Meek,  Mouser,  Pettis,  Phelps,  Rominger,  Seott,  C.  E. ; 
Scott,  L.  D. ;  Sharkey,  Shartel,  Spengler,  Tabler,  Wishard,  and 
Wright,    H.    W.— 35. 

170  Quinn  of  Humboldt,  replying  to  Assemblyman  Ryan's  plea 
for    the   amendment,    said: 

"After  he  (Ryan)  had  succeeded  in  beating  this  recommenda- 
tion." (that  the  terms  of  the  incumbent  Judges  be  not  extended) 
said  Quinn,  "and  the  Assembly  had  then  defeated  the  measure, 
he  now  asks  to  have  the  change  made  in  order  to  get  favorable 
action    on    the    measure    from    the    Assembly. 

"Whenever  I  get  in  such  a  position  in  regard  to  any  bill 
which  I  father  that  I  would  get  up  here  one  day  and  oppose 
striking  out  a  portion  of  it,  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  the 
'Heart  of  the  measure,'  as  stated  by  Mr.  Ryan  a  few  days  ago, 
and  after  seeing  my  measure  defeated  would  get  up  two  days 
later  and  say  that  it  didn't  amount  to  anything  anyway,  and 
ask  to  have  the  'Heart  of  the  measure'  stricken  out,  I  would 
resign    my    seat    in    the    Assembly." 


210    The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment 

San  Francisco  members  voting  "aye"  where  three  days 
before  they  had  voted  "no,"  the  change  in  the  amend- 
ment was  adopted.171 

The  Finn  measure  as  amended  provided  merely  that 
Superior  Judges  to  be  elected  hereafter  shall  be  elected 
for  twelve  instead  of  six  years. 

As  amended,  the  Assembly  finally  adopted  the  meas- 
ure. Fifty-four  Assembly  votes  were  required  for  its 
adoption.  Ten  of  the  San  Francisco  members  voted. 
Every  one  of  the  ten  voted  for  the  amendment.  With 
the  support  of  the  San  Francisco  ten,  the  measure  re- 
ceived fifty-four  votes.172  Had  one  of  the  San  Francisco 
members  voted  against  it,  it  would  have  been  defeated. 
The  Senate,  without  opposition,  concurred  in  the  As- 
sembly amendments. 

171  The  vote  by  which  the  change  in  the  amendment  was 
adopted  was  as  follows,  the  name  of  the  San  Francisco  members 
being  printed  in  black   type: 

For  the  change — Anderson,  Bartlett,  Beck,  Boude,  Browne,  M. 
B.;  Bruck,  Burke,  Byrnes,  Canepa,  Chamberlin,  Collins,  Conard, 
Dennett,  Downing,  Edwards,  L. ;  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gelder, 
Godsil,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Kennedy,  Kerr, 
Kramer,  Long,  Lyon,  Manning,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald,  W. 
A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Mouser,  Phelps,  Phillips,  Prendergast, 
Rigdon,  Rodgers,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Schmitt,  Scott,  C. 
E.;  Scott,  F.  C;  Scott,  L.  D.;  Sisson,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.; 
Wright,    T.    M.,    and    Young— 51. 

Against  the  change — Arnerich,  Ashley,  Benton,  Brown,  Henry 
Ward;  Cary,  Edwards,  R.  G.;  Hawson,  Judson,  Lostutter, 
McCray,    Quinn,    Rominger,    Sharkey,    Tabler,    and    Wills — 15. 

172  The  vote  by  which  the  Finn  amendment  was  finally 
adopted  in  the  Assembly  was  as  follows,  the  names  of  the  San 
Francisco   members  being  printed   in  black  type: 

For  the  Finn  amendment — Anderson,  Arnerich,  Ashley,  Avey, 
Bartlett,  Beck,  Benton,  Boude,  Bruck,  Burke,  Byrnes,  Canepa, 
Chenoweth,  Collins,  Conard,  Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Gebhart, 
Gelder,  Godsil,  Hayes,  D.  R. ;  Hayes,  J.  J.;  Johnson,  Kennedy, 
Kerr,  Kramer,  Long,  Lyon,  Manning,  McDonald,  J.  J.;  McDonald, 
W.  A.;  McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Pettis,  Phillips, 
Ream,  Rigdon,  Rominger,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Satterwhite,  Schmitt, 
Scott,  C.  E. ;  Scott,  F.  C. ;  Sisson,  Tabler,  Widenmann,  Wills, 
Wishardt,   Wright.    T.    M.,    and   Young— 54. 

Against  the  Finn  amendment — Brown,  Henry  Ward;  Browne, 
M.  B. ;  Cary,  Chamberlin,  Dennett,  Downing,  Fish,  Harris,  Haw- 
son, Judson,  Lostutter,  McCray,  Phelps,  Quinn,  Scott,  L.  D. ; 
Shartel,   Spengler,  Wright,   H.  W.— 18. 


The  Finn  Constitutional  Amendment    211 

The  details  of  the  adoption  of  the  Finn  Constitu- 
tional amendment  are  given  at  length  for  two  reasons : 

(1)  That  The  People  of  California  may  be  made  to 
appreciate  the  influence  of  the  San  Francisco  Senators 
and  Assemblymen  on  legislation. 

(2)  That  Labor  may  see,  to  use  the  words  of  Sec- 
retary-Treasurer Scharrenberg  of  the  State  Federation 
of  Labor,  how  this  constitutional  amendment  to  double 
the  length  of  the  terms  of  Superior  Judges,  was  "put 
over  despite  the  protest  of  Organized  Labor." 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
San   Francisco  and  the  Legislature. 

The  California  Legislature  consists  of  a  Senate  of 
forty  and  an  Assembly  of  eighty  members.  For  twenty 
years  prior  to  1913,  nine  of  the  Senators  and  eighteen 
of  the  Assemblymen  were  elected  from  San  Francisco. 
This  gave  San  Francisco  practically  one-fourth  of  the 
Legislature.  The  San  Francisco  group  in  each  House 
voted  practically  as  a  unit.  In  fact,  at  some  sessions 
the  San  Francisco  delegation  in  each  House  was  ac- 
corded all  the  advantage  of  a  standing  committee,  meas- 
ures being  referred  to  it  as  to  a  committee. 

Such  a  proportion  of  the  Legislature,  acting  as  a 
unit,  could  not  but  have  important  part  in  shaping  leg- 
islation. This  legislation  affected  not  San  Francisco 
alone  but  the  whole  State.  The  County  of  Del  Norte 
and  the  County  of  Imperial  are  as  much  affected  by 
the  work  of  the  State  Legislature  as  is  San  Francisco. 
These  counties — and  all  other  counties  of  the  State  for 
that  matter — have  as  much  interest  in  the  character  of 
the  men  whom  San  Francisco  sends  to  the  Legislature 
as  they  have  in  their  own  Senators  and  Assemblymen. 

For  the  most  part  the  San  Francisco  members  have 
not  been  representative  of  the  State,  nor  even  of  the 
city  responsible  for  their  presence  in  the  Legislature. 
In  the  case  of  the  great  majority  of  them  their  votes 
and  their  influence  have  at  the  tests  been  cast  not  for, 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature      213 

but  against,  the  best  interests  of  their  city  and  of  the 
State. 

This  will  not  be  seriously  disputed.  It  is  notorious, 
recognized,  admitted.  Those  whom  San  Francisco  sends 
to  the  Legislature  are  for  the  most  part  those  whom 
honest  men  in  the  Legislature  feel  it  necessary  to  watch. 

That  statement  is  not  my  own.  It  is  taken  from  an 
editorial  article  printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle.173 

The  State  of  California  has  tried  to  the  limit  of 
endurance  to  be  patient  with  San  Francisco's  imposi- 
tion of  legislative  delegations  on  it. 

Nor  is  that  statement  my  own.  It  is  taken  from  an 
editorial  article  printed  in  the  Fresno  Republican.174 

The  San  Francisco  delegation  acts  not  for  San  Fran- 
cisco alone  but  for  the  whole  State.  The  members  from 
outside  San  Francisco,  as  has  been  well  said,  are  a  check 
upon  the  San  Francisco  members.  This  check  is  for 
the  benefit,  not  of  the  State  outside  San  Francisco 
alone,  but  of  San  Francisco  as  well.  It  would  be  to  the 
disadvantage,  not  only  to  the  outside  districts,  but  to 
San  Francisco,  were  that  city  to  be  allowed  more  legis- 
lative representatives  than  fair  reapportionment  calls  for. 

Nor  is  that  statement  my  own.  It  is  taken  from  an 
editorial  article  printed  in  the  Sacramento  Bee.175 

The  three  statements  selected  from  many  similar,  are 
just  statements. 

Those  unfamiliar  with  the  work  of  the  Legislature 
cannot  appreciate  the  influence  for  ill  of  a  block  of  as 

173  Issue   of   March    15,    1911. 

174  in  discussing  the  proposed  recall  of  Senator  Grant. 

175  Issue   of  March   25,    1911. 


214      San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

many  as  nine  votes  in  the  Senate  and  as  many  as 
eighteen  in  the  Assembly. 

To  submit  a  constitutional  amendment  to  the  elect- 
ors, for  example,  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  House  is  re- 
quired, twenty-seven  in  the  Senate,  fifty-four  in  the 
Assembly.  All  that  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  defeat  a 
constitutional  amendment  is  to  secure  twenty-seven  neg- 
ative votes  in  the  Assembly,  or  fourteen  negative  votes 
in  the  Senate.  Thus,  when  the  San  Francisco  delega- 
tion wished  to  defeat  a  constitutional  amendment  they 
could,  by  securing,  in  addition  to  their  own,  five  nega- 
tive votes  in  the  Senate  or  nine  in  the  Assembly,  pre- 
vent the  amendment  being  submitted  to  the  electors. 
Every  one  of  the  sixty-two  Assemblymen  from  outside 
San  Francisco  and  twenty-six  of  the  State  Senators, 
might  support  a  constitutional  amendment — but  the  nine 
San  Francisco  Senators,  with  the  votes  of  five  Senators 
from  outside  San  Francisco,  were  still  able  to  defeat  it. 
A  great  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State,  and  even 
of  San  Francisco,  might  be  demanding  opportunity  to 
pass  on  the  amendment  thus  defeated.  But  the  nine 
San  Francisco  Senators,  if  they  could  get  five  outside 
Senators  to  join  with  them,  could  deny  that  privilege, 
and  on  occasion  did  deny  it. 

Such  situations  actually  occurred.  For  many  years, 
for  example,  there  was  general  demand  throughout  the 
State  that  free  text-books  be  furnished  the  pupils  of  the 
public  schools.  This  could  not  be  done,  however,  with- 
out an  amendment  to  the  State  Constitution.  The  San 
Francisco  delegation  opposed  the  submission  of  such  an 
amendment,  and  session  after  session  prevented  its 
submission. 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature      215 

At  the  regular  1911  session  a  Free  Text  Book 
amendment  was  adopted  in  the  Assembly  and  went  to 
the  Senate.  In  the  Senate  the  San  Francisco  delega- 
tion easily  demonstrated  they  had  five  votes  in  addition 
to  their  own  against  it.176  When  it  came  to  vote  seven 
of  them  were  present  to  vote  and  four  other  Senators 
voted  with  them.  The  proponents  of  the  measure  rec- 
ognized that  they  could  not  put  the  amendment  through, 
and  ceased  their  activities  for  its  adoption.177 

Another  Free  Text  Book  amendment  came  up  at 
the  special  1911  session,  held  in  December  of  that  year. 
This  time  the  San  Francisco  delegation  failed  to  win 
to  their  nine  the  votes  of  five  outside  members.  They 
could  get  but  three.178  The  Free  Text  Book  amendment 
was  thus  submitted  to  the  electors,  coming  to  vote  at 
the  general  election  in   November,   1912.     The   People 

176  In  the  report  on  Labor  Legislation  of  the  1911  session, 
issued  by  the  California  State  Federation  of  Labor,  the  failure 
to  adopt  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  16,  the  Free  Text 
Book   amendment,    is   made   subject   of   special   comment. 

The  Senate  vote  by  which  the  amendment  was  refused  adop- 
tion is  given,  and  is  followed  by  this  comment: 

"It  will  be  noted  that  seven  San  Francisco  Senators 
voted  against  this  measure,  which  is  a  part  of  the  platform 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  was  endorsed 
by  the  convention  of  the  California  State  Federation  of 
Labor." 

The  seven  San  Francisco  Senators  referred  to  were  Beban, 
Cassidy,    Finn,    Hare,    Regan,    Welsh    and    Wolfe. 

177  A  full  account  of  the  defeat  of  this  amendment  will  be 
found  in  the   "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911." 

178  The  Senate  vote  by  which  the  free  Text  Book  amendment 
was  at  the  special  session  of  the  1911  Legislature,  submitted  to 
The  People,  was  as  follows,  the  names  of  the  San  Francisco 
members   being   in   black   type: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Avey,  Bell,  Bills.  Birdsall, 
Black,  Boynton,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo, 
Gates,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Roseberry, 
Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan.  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker, 
and  Wright— 27. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Beban,  Bryant,  Burnett, 
Cassidy,  Finn,  Hare,  Holohan,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Tyrrell,  Welch, 
and    Wolfe— 12. 


216      San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

ratified  it  by  a  two-to-one  vote,  343,443  voting  for  it 
and  only  171,486  voting  against  it.  But  had  the  San 
Francisco  delegation  in  the  Senate  been  able  to  drag 
two  more  Senators  from  outside  San  Francisco  to  op- 
position of  the  amendment,  the  343,443  Californians 
who  wanted  text  books  supplied  through  the  State  would 
not  have  been  given  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it. 

In  San  Francisco  the  proportionate  vote  was  prac- 
tically the  same  as  that  throughout  the  State,  54,041 
San  Francisco  electors  voted  for  it,  only  27,443  against 
it.  Thus,  the  San  Francisco  members  of  the  Legislature 
in  blocking,  session  after  session,  the  submission  to  the 
electors  of  a  Free  Text  Book  amendment  not  only 
thwarted  the  will  of  The  People  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, but  the  will  of  The  People  of  the  City  of  San 
Francisco  who  had  sent  them  to  the   Legislature. 

Much  is  said  about  the  right  of  San  Francisco  to 
representation  in  the  Legislature.  San  Francisco  has 
that  right,  but  such  records  as  that  made  by  the  San 
Francisco  members  on  the  Free  Text  Book  amendment 
indicate  that  The  People  of  San  Francisco  are  not  rep- 
resented. 

For  years,  to  employ  another  example,  the  San  Fran- 
cisco delegation  in  Senate  and  Assembly  stood  a  prac- 
tically solid  block  of  votes  against  legislation  which 
would  interfere  with  the  activities  of  race-track  gam- 
blers. Even  at  the  1909  session,  when  the  gamblers 
were  defeated,  ten  Assemblymen,  all  from  San  Fran- 
cisco, and  seven  Senators,  five  from  San  Francisco, 
stood  by  the  gamblers  to  the  last,  casting  their  votes 
against  the  bill.179 

179  See   "Story  of  the  California   Legislature  of  1909,"   Chapters 
VI  and  VII. 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature      217 

In  1912  there  was  a  State-wide  vote  on  the  question 
of  race-track  gambling.  The  vote  was  353,070  against 
the  gamblers,  to  only  149,864  for  the  gamblers.  Even 
in  San  Francisco,  the  vote  was  against  the  gamblers  by 
more  than  5000,  43,962  against,  to  38,641  for.  Thus, 
The  People  of  San  Francisco,  whose  legislative  delega- 
tion had  for  years  made  it  possible  for  the  gambling 
element  to  retain  their  hold  upon  the  State,  when  given 
opportunity  to  vote  on  the  issue,  cast  their  votes  against 
race-track  gambling.  The  San  Francisco  legislative  del- 
egation did  not  represent  The  People  of  California  on 
this  issue,  nor  The  People  of  San  Francisco. 

On  many  other  issues  have  the  San  Francisco  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  blocked  the  will  of  The  People 
of  this  State.  For  years  the  San  Francisco  delegation 
was  able  to  defeat  legislation  to  abolish  prize-fighting.180 
In  1914  The  People  of  California  were  given  opportu- 
nity to  vote  upon  an  initiated  anti-Prize  Fight  bill.  They 
ratified  it  by  a  vote  of  413,741  for,  to  327,569  against. 

For  years  The  People  of  the  State  demanded  the 
enactment  of  a  practical  Local  Option  law.  Voting  as 
a  unit,  the  San  Francisco  delegation  succeeded  until 
1911  in  preventing  the  passage  of  such  a  law,  although 
the  bill  was  amended  to  exclude  San  Francisco  from 
its  provisions.  The  San  Francisco  delegation  in  effect 
said  to  The  People  of  the  counties  outside  San  Fran- 
cisco :  "This  bill  does  not  affect  San  Francisco.  But 
we  Senators  and  Assemblymen  from  San  Francisco  are 
in  a  position  to  deny  you  the  privilege  of  deciding  for 

180  At  the  1913  session  the  only  San  Francisco  member  to 
support  the  anti-Prize  Fight  bill  was  Senator  Grant.  This  fact, 
during  the  recall  election,  was  urged  as  a  reason  for  his  removal 
from   office. 


2i 8       San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

yourselves  whether  or  not  you  want  saloons  in  your 
communities.  And  we  are  going  to  deny  you  that 
privilege." 

And  they  did.181 

For  thirty  years  The  People  of  California  demanded 
practical  railroad  regulation.  In  1909  Senator  Stetson 
introduced  a  measure  to  that  end.  The  San  Francisco 
delegation  in  the  Senate  to  a  man  opposed  the  Stetson 
bill.  The  nine  San  Francisco  votes  were  cast  to  substi- 
tute another  measure  for  it.  In  this  way  the  Stetson 
bill  was  defeated.  The  vote  by  which  this  was  done 
was  18  for  the  Stetson  bill,  22  against.  Had  three — 
one-third — of  the  nine  San  Francisco  Senators  at  the 
1909  session  voted  for  the  Stetson  bill  it  would  have 
been  enacted.182 

The  unrepresentative  San  Francisco  legislative  dele- 
gation reflects  political  conditions  in  San  Francisco. 
San  Francisco  is,  and  long  has  been,  under  the  heels  of 
underworld  and  corporation  interests.  Nine  years  ago 
San  Francisco  attempted  to  throw  off  the  yoke,  but, 
after  three  years  of  extraordinary  effort,  found  the 
allied  underworld  and  corporation  elements  too  power- 
ful for  her.  The  contest  was  finally  abandoned.  So 
far  as  law-enforcement  is  concerned,  San  Francisco  has 
ever  since  been  in  what  is  virtually  a  state  of  anarchy. 

No  community  can  realize  its  best  development  under 

i8i  For  account  of  the  defeat  of  the  Local  Option  bill  at  the 
1909  session,  see  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909." 
For  account  of  the  bill's  passage  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of 
San  Francisco  Senators  and  Assemblymen,  see  "Story  of  the 
California  Legislature   of  1911." 

182  For  account  of  the  defeat  of  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regu- 
lation bill,  see  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909." 
For  account  of  the  passage  of  the  Railroad  Regulation  act  see 
"Story  of   the    California  Legislature   of   1911." 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature      219 

such  conditions.  In  spite  of  the  city's  superb  position, 
San  Francisco,  exploited  by  underworld183  and  preda- 
tory corporations,  has  the  humiliation  of  failing  to  keep 
pace  with  the  development  of  the  remainder  of  the  State. 
One  of  the  penalties  has  been  loss  of  population,  a  loss 
which  in  the  ordinary  course  of  the  city's  development 
would  have  equaled  the   population  of  two   Senatorial 

183  There  are  over  2,000  licensed  saloons  in  San  Francisco,  and, 
according  to  reliable  statements,  more  than  2,500  "blind  pigs" 
that  in  more  or  less  open  defiance  of  law  operate  without 
municipal  license,  although  many  of  them  take  out  Federal 
licenses.  The  adverse  influence  of  the  saloon  element  alone  has 
been  tremendously  costly  to  San  Francisco.  How  costly  is  seen 
in  a  degree  when  conditions  as  they  exist  at  San  Francisco 
now,  are  compared  with  conditions  during  the  period  after  the 
1906  fire,  when  the  saloons  were  closed.  The  following  editorial 
articles  from  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  describe  the  beneficial 
effect  of   saloon   closing  upon   the   city: 

Issue  of  May  9,  1906:  "San  Francisco,  for  the  past  fortnight, 
has  been  absolutely  free  from  disorder  and  virtually  free  from 
crimes  of  violence.  There  have  been  no  street  brawls.  No 
drunken  brute  has  beaten  his  wife.  No  gamblers  have  murdered 
each  other  in  low  resorts.  Except  for  some  dealings  with  sneak 
thieves,  the  occupation  of  the  police  courts  is  gone.  It  is  a 
most  impressive  object  lesson  of  the  value  to  Society  of  the 
restriction  of  the  liquor  traffic.  We  are  promised  a  continuance 
of  this  special  condition  for  a  considerable  time  to  come,  save 
only  as  drunken  men  may  drift  over  from  Oakland  where  the 
authorities  have  been  so  reckless  as  to  allow  saloons  to  open. 
We  may  be   compelled   to   renew   quarantine  against   Oakland. 

"This  demonstration  that  the  saloons  are  responsible  for  all 
crimes  of  violence,  makes  it  imperative  that  whenever  they  shall 
be  allowed  to  re-open  in  this  city,  their  license  fees  be  fixed  at 
a  rate  which  will  support  the  police  department.  There  must  be 
increased  taxation.  The  public  generally  will  protest  against 
being  taxed  for  the  control  or  suspension  of  those  forms  of  crime 
for  which  the  saloons  are  now  proved  to  be  solely  responsible. 
The  public  will  look  to  the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  place  the 
cost  of  dealing  with  crimes  of  violence  on  the  occupation  which 
is    responsible    for    all    of    it." 

Issue  of  May  10,  1906:  "If  it  were  not  for  our  neighbors, 
San  Francisco  would  be  a  truly  exemplary  town.  From  having 
more  saloons  to  the  1,000  inhabitants  than  any  other  county  in 
the  State,  San  Francisco  has  become  a  place  where  a  man  has 
to  visit  another  county  to  get  a  drink.  There  is  a  general 
admission  that  the  community  would  be  a  decided  gainer  if  it 
could  induce  Oakland  and  San  Mateo  Counties  to  follow  an  excel- 
lent  example  of  sticking  strictly  to  soft  drinks." 

Issue  of  May  10,  1906:  "Chief  of  Police  Dinan  makes  no 
pretensions  that  we  know  of  to  pulpit  oratory,  but  in  his  capacity 
as  a  conservator  of  the  public  peace,  he  has  been  moved  to 
express  sentiments  which  would  be  entirely  in  place  in  the  mouth 
of  any  clergyman  in  America.  What  he  said  was  this:  'We  are 
determined    to    maintain    the    good    order    that    has    prevailed    ever 


220      San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

districts.  This  has  meant  proportionate  loss  in  legis- 
lative representation.  Under  reappointment  of  the 
State's  legislative  districts  in  1911,  San  Francisco  lost 
five  Assemblymen  and  two  State  Senators.  San  Fran- 
cisco's legislative  representation  is  now  thirteen  instead 
of  eighteen  Assemblymen,  seven  instead  of  nine  Sena- 
tors.184    With  the  character  of  San  Francisco's  legisla- 

since  the  disaster.  The  most  effective  way  to  do  this  is  to  keep 
the  saloons  closed  and  prevent  the  bringing  in  of  liquor  from 
neighboring  cities.'  There  was  more  to  the  same  effect,  but  the 
foregoing  is  sufficient.  It  is  liquor,  according  to  Chief  Dinan, 
which  is  responsible  for  crimes  of  violence.  It  is,  of  course, 
responsible  for  much  other  crime  which  would  not  be  committed 
except  under  the  excitement  produced  by  drink,  but  what  Chief 
Dinan  had  in  mind  was  crime  resulting  from  drunken  foolishness 
and  quarrels.  The  question  arises,  why  should  Society  endure  and 
pay  the  cost  of  crime  thus  easily  prevented?  It  is  evidence  of 
human  inefficiency  that  we  habitually  do  it.  No  saloon  open, 
no  crimes  of  violence.  It  would  be  altogether  too  much  to  expect 
San  Francisco  to  become  a  Prohibition  city — saloons  will  be 
re-opened  in  due  time.  It  is  not,  however,  too  much  to  expect 
that  when  they  open,  they  shall  do  so  under  the  payment  of  a 
license  fee  large  enough  to  pay  the  cost  of  protection  against 
evils  which  they  will  create  and  incidentally  to  prevent  the  low 
groggeries    from    opening   at   all." 

Issue  of  May  12,  1906:  "San  Francisco  is  a  very  orderly  city, 
and  that  fact  is  by  no  means  owing  to  a  superabundant  supply 
of  guardians  of  the  peace.  It  is  due  almost  wholly  to  the  closing 
of  the  saloons.  As  long  as  they  can  be  kept  from  creating 
depredations  on  the  public  peace  and  purse,  San  Franciscans  will 
be  comparatively  happy.  Their  troubles  will  begin  when  the 
redlight  flashes  again  and  the  tinkle  of  the  bar  glass  is  heard 
on  every  street  corner  and  often  in  half  a  dozen  places  on  a 
block." 

184  The  San  Francisco  delegation  demanded  that  no  change 
be  made  in  San  Francisco's  legislative  representation.  Later  they 
seemed  willing  to  compromise  on  eight  Senators  and  sixteen 
Assemblymen.  Of  this  last  demand  the  Sacramento  Bee,  in  its 
issue    of   March    25,    1911,    said: 

"San  Francisco,  entitled  under  the  State  Constitution  govern- 
ing reapportionment,  to  seven  State  Senators  and  fourteen  As- 
semblymen, demands  eight  State  Senators  and  sixteen  Assembly- 
men. 

"The  reason  for  this  claim  is  not  apparent.  Certainly  San 
Francisco  does  not  base  her  demand  upon  the  character  of  the 
delegations    which    she    sends    to    the    Legislature. 

"This  week,  for  example,  Senator  Cassidy  of  San  Francisco, 
known  to  wish  to  escape  voting  on  the  anti-Injunction  bill,  dis- 
appeared   at    the    critical    moment    of    the    measure's    passage. 

"As  a  result  of  his  disappearance,  the  Senate  was  held  in  idle- 
ness for  nineteen  hours,  the  members  put  to  great  inconvenience, 
and,  in  some  cases,  physical  suffering.  Incidentally,  the  State 
was   made    to   suffer   a    loss    of   more    than    $1,000. 

"A  second  San  Francisco  Senator,  Hare,  gave  evidence  of  his 
respect  for  the  Senate  and  his   high   regard  for  the   responsibility 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature       221 

tive  representation  what  it  is,  the  whole  State,  including 
San  Francisco,  has  gained  by  the  reduction.185 

But  even  with  the  reduction,  the  San  Francisco 
group  in  each  House  is  still  a  menacing  block  of  votes 
with  which  The  People  of  California  must  still  reckon. 

This  solid  block  at  the  1915  session,  for  example, 
defeated  the  University  Dry  Zone  bill.     Had  only  one 


of  his  position,  by  crawling  out  of  a  window,  and  making  his 
escape. 

"Two  other  San  Francisco  Senators,  Finn  and  Beban,  placed 
on  honor  as  men  and  State  Senators  to  be  in  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber at  noon  of  the  second  day  of  the  anti-Injunction  bill  dead- 
lock, were  not  in  the  Chamber  at  the  appointed  hour.  They  came 
in   three-quarters   of    an    hour   later. 

"On  the  Assembly  side,  San  Francisco  is  no  better  repre- 
sented   than    in    the    Senate. 

"Assemblyman  Coghlan,  for  example,  took  occasion  this  week, 
while  that  body  was  in  session,  to  call  Assemblyman  Randall  a 
'liar   and   a   perjurer.' 

"Mr.    Randall    is    neither. 

"But  even  though  he  were,  Coghlan's  language,  on  the  floor 
of  the   Assembly  Chamber,    would   have   been   unjustifiable. 

"And  yet,  Cassidy,  Hare,  Finn,  Beban  and  Coghlan  are  above 
the  average  of  the  men  whom  San  Francisco  sends  to  the 
Legislature. 

"The  San  Francisco  delegation  acts  not  for  San  Francisco 
alone,  but  for  the  whole  State.  The  members  from  outside  San 
Francisco,  as  has  been  well  said,  are  a  check  upon  the  San 
Francisco  members.  This  check  is  for  the  benefit,  not  of  the 
State  outside  San  Francisco  alone,  but  of  San  Francisco  as  well. 
It  would  be  to  the  disadvantage,  not  only  to  the  outside  districts, 
but  to  San  Francisco,  were  that  city  to  be  allowed  more  legis- 
lative   representatives    than    fair   reapportionment    calls    for. 

"San  Francisco,  which  benefits  with  the  remainder  of  the 
State  because  of  the  check  of  the  outside  representatives  upon 
her  legislative  delegation,  will  suffer  proportionately  should  this 
check   be   weakened. 

"San  Francisco  is  entitled,  under  the  Constitution,  to  seven 
Senators  and  fourteen  Assemblymen.  It  would  be  bad  law  and 
poor  policy   to   accord   her  more." 

i£5  At  the  1913  session,  for  example,  San  Francisco  politicians, 
with  only  thirteen  votes  in  the  Assembly,  failed  to  dictate  the 
selection  of  Speaker.  With  eighteen  votes  they  would  have 
named  the  Speaker  and  dictated  the  organization  of  the  Assem- 
bly. With  nine  votes  in  the  Senate  the  San  Francisco  delega- 
tion was  able  in  1911  to  force  a  compromise  in  the  enactment 
of  the  Local  Option  law.  With  only  seven  Senate  votes  in  1913, 
and  thirteen  Assembly  votes,  the  San  Francisco  members  not 
only  failed  in  their  efforts  to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  Redlight 
Abatement  act,  but  failed  to  amend  it.  They  also  failed  to  have 
San  Francisco  excluded  from  the  provisions  of  the  act  which 
requires   saloons  to  be  closed  from  the  hours  of  2  a.  m.   to  6  a.   m. 


222       San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

of  the  San  Francisco  members  voted  for  this  bill,  it 
would  have  passed  the  Senate.  Had  the  San  Francisco 
delegation  divided  even  so  slightly  on  the  Local  Option 
issue,  the  county  unit  of  prohibition  would,  at  the  1915 
session,  have  been  established.  The  San  Francisco  Sen- 
ate delegation's  solid  support  of  the  Finn  constitutional 
amendment  to  extend  the  terms  of  Superior  Judges 
elected  for  six  years,  to  twelve  years,  made  possible  the 
adoption  by  the  Senate  of  the  amendment  in  the  form 
in  which  Finn  had  first  offered  it. 

Even  more  important  is  the  influence  of  this  solid 
block  of  votes  upon  members  from  outside  San  Francisco. 

Most  members  go  to  Sacramento  with  some  measure 
which  their  constituents  expect  them  to  get  through. 
Some  of  these  measures  are  unimportant,  upon  the  de- 
feat or  passage  of  others  depends  the  future  of  whole 
districts.  The  people  of  Sutter  county,  for  example, 
held  at  the  1915  session  that  the  enactment  of  certain 
reclamation  measures  would  mean  absolute  ruin  for  large 
areas  of  fertile  districts.  Their  representative  was 
charged  with  the  defeat  or  a  modification  of  those  meas- 
ures. The  San  Francisco  members  knew  little  of  the 
merits  of  the  controversy,  the  majority  of  them  cared 
less,  but  they  had  the  balance  of  power  in  this  issue. 
Upon  their  votes  hung  the  disposition  of  those  reclama- 
tion bills.  Sutter  county  was  just  then  greatly  inter- 
ested— if  Sutter  County  but  knew  it — in  the  character 
of  the  members  from  San  Francisco.  It  is  quite  con- 
ceivable, under  the  circumstances,  that  Sutter  county's 
representative  would  be  constrained  during  the  session 
to  treat  the  San  Francisco  delegation  with  the  most 
courteous  consideration. 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature      223 

It  is  not  exaggerating  the  situation  to  say  that  mem- 
bers from  outside  San  Francisco  with  important  meas- 
ures to  get  through,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  stu- 
diously avoid  giving  offense  to  the  San  Francisco  block 
of  votes  in  Senate  and  Assembly. 

Once  in  the  history  of  the  Legislature,  1911,  the  out- 
side members  of  the  Assembly  organized  to  resist  the 
efforts  of  the  San  Francisco  members  to  secure  greater 
legislative  representation  for  San  Francisco  than  San 
Francisco's  population  warranted.  It  is  not  improbable, 
should  there  be  no  improvement  in  the  personnel  of 
the  San  Francisco  legislative  delegation,  that  at  some 
session  the  members  from  outside  districts  will  organize 
the  Legislature  without  consideration  of  San  Francisco 
or  the  San  Francisco  delegation.  The  outside  members 
have  the  power  to  do  this.  In  so  doing  they  would  have 
the  applause  and  support,  not  only  of  the  decent  citizenry 
of  the  outside  districts,  but  of  the  decent  citizenry  of 
San  Francisco. 

The  character  of  the  San  Francisco  delegations  in 
Senate  and  Assembly  is  reflected  upon  the  legislative 
attaches. 

Under  the  present  patronage  system,  the  attaches 
are  a  few  degrees  lower  in  ability  and  purpose  than  the 
legislators  who  get  them  on  the  payroll.  Thirteen  As- 
semblymen and  seven  Senators  name  a  large  number  of 
the  Legislature's  helpers.  While  a  few  attaches  from 
San  Francisco  have  proved  competent  and  most  effect- 
ive, the  great  majority  of  them  could  very  well  be  dis- 
pensed with.  At  the  1915  session,  for  example,  the  wife 
of  one  San  Francisco  member  and  the  sister  of  another 
who  had  been  placed  on   the  legislative   payroll,   flatly 


224      San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

refused  to  work,  apparently  on  the  ground  that  the 
wife's  husband  was  a  lawmaker  and  a  well-known  base- 
ball player,  while  the  sister  was  credited  with  having 
done  much  to  promote  the  Progressive  cause  at  San 
Francisco.  It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  both 
these  protesting  ladies  were  given  the  alternative  of 
going  to  work,  or  being  dismissed.    They  went  to  work. 

A  popular  disposition  of  San  Francisco  attaches  is 
to  assign  them  to  jobs  as  assistant  sergeants-at-arms. 
At  the  1915  session  no  less  than  fifteen  San  Franciscans 
served  in  that  capacity. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum, 
the  State  has  its  remedy  against  such  blocks  of  votes 
in  the  Legislature  as  are  sent  from  San  Francisco.  Nine 
San  Francisco  Senators  could  not  now,  for  example, 
deny  The  People  the  privilege  of  voting  on  the  question 
of  free  text-books.  Should  such  a  thing  be  attempted, 
the  public  would  at  once  resort  to  the  Initiative.  At  the 
1913  session  San  Francisco  Senators  and  Assemblymen, 
in  the  face  of  general  demand  for  such  a  law,  did  suc- 
ceed in  blocking  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  outlaw  prize- 
fighting. Formerly  the  public  would  have  been  helpless. 
They  are  not  helpless  now.  The  electors,  resorting  to 
the  Initiative,  put  an  anti-Prize  Fight  law  on  the  statute 
books.  Should  the  reactionary  element  ever  secure  con- 
trol of  the  Legislature,  and  attempt  to  conduct  the 
State's  business  as  they  did  prior  to  1910,  it  is  unthink- 
able that  the  reputable  people  of  the  State  would  not 
resort  to  the  Initiative  and  the  Referendum  to  restrain 
them. 

But  even  with  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  avail- 
able, San  Francisco  presents  to  the  State  a  problem  even 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature      225 

more  serious  than  that  of  the  San  Francisco  legislative 
delegation. 

In  a  community  where  the  laws  are  not  enforced 
against  underworld  infringement,  it  is  not  only  possible 
to  make  corrupt  use  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum 
in  the  interest  of  underworld  exploiters  with  entire 
safety  to  those  so  corrupting  them,  but  the  Initiative 
and  the  Referendum  have  actually  been  so  corrupted 
and  used. 

In  1912,  for  example,  after  race-track  gambling  had 
been  outlawed  by  legislative  enactment,  the  gamblers 
resorted  to  the  Initiative  to  restore  race-track  gambling. 
They  called  their  measure  "An  act  to  prohibit  book- 
making  and  pool-selling."  Representing  it  to  be  a 
r  easure  to  prohibit  gambling,  and  resorting  in  some 
■ases  to  forgery,186  they  secured  enough  signatures  to 
xiave  the  bill  put  on  the  ballot. 

The  measure  was  defeated  at  the  polls,  but  to  de- 
feat it  required  a  State-wide  campaign  which  involved 
a  large  amount  of  labor  and  expense  which  had  to  be 
borne  by  a  few  individuals. 

Again  several  measures  passed  by  the  1913  Legis- 
lature were  held  up  under  the  Referendum.  The  greater 
part  of  the  signatures  to  the  Referendum  petitions  were 
secured  at  San  Francisco.  It  developed  that  thousands 
of  names  on  the  San  Francisco  petitions  had  been 
forged.  Theodore  Kytka,  the  handwriting  expert,  is 
authority  for  the  statement  that  had  all  the  forged  sig- 
natures been  eliminated  from  the  petition  under  which 

186  At  Sacramento  one  of  the  men  who  forged  names  to  the 
gamblers  Initiative  petition  was  trapped.  He  finally  plead  guilty. 
He    was    immediately   released. 


226      San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

one  of  the  measures,  the  Redlight  Abatement  act,  was 
held  up,  there  would  not  have  remained  enough  valid 
signatures  to  invoke  the  Referendum  against  the  act. 

The  forgers  were  known ;  their  crimes  were  estab- 
lished. But  it  was  not  until  Governor  Johnson  called 
upon  the  State  Attorney-General  to  press  the  cases  that 
anything  resembling  effective  prosecution  resulted.  A 
number  of  the  defendants  pleaded  guilty.  One  was  sen- 
tenced to  a  term  in  State  prison.  He  did  not  go  to 
State  prison,  however.  He  was,  after  a  short  term  in 
the  county  jail,  released.  The  others  were  freed  on 
probation. 

It  has  been  demonstrated  that  at  San  Francisco 
direct  legislation  petitions  can  be  forged  in  the  interest 
of  underworld  exploiters  without  danger  to  those  re- 
sponsible for  the  forgeries. 

That  the  forging  of  direct  legislation  petitions  will 
be  continued  goes  without  saying.  To  be  sure,  the  1915 
Legislature  enacted  laws  imposing  severe  penalties  for 
corrupt  use  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum.  But 
the  State  is  still  helpless  against  communities  in  which 
the  laws  are  not  enforced. 

Here  again  does  the  condition  of  lawlessness  which 
exists  at  San  Francisco  menace  the  State.  The  con- 
dition is  one  which  affects  not  only  San  Francisco,  but 
all  California.  More  and  more  is  it  pressed  home  to 
The  People  of  the  State  that  a  condition  of  lawlessness 
cannot  exist  at  the  State's  chief  city  without  the  whole 
State  suffering. 

Such  being  the  case,  the  State's  patience  with  San 
Francisco's  impositions  may  one  day  come  to  an  end, 
or,  as  the  Fresno  Republican  puts  it,  "the  State's  im- 


San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature      227 

patience  may  pass  the  limit  of  endurance."  Should  that 
time  ever  come,  a  remedy  has  been  suggested.  One  of 
the  few  men  whom  San  Francisco  has  sent  to  the  Leg- 
islature who  took  a  stand  against  San  Francisco  con- 
ditions, Assemblyman  Arthur  Joel„  has  indicated  a  pro- 
cedure which  may  be  followed. 

At  the  1911  session  Assemblyman  Joel  introduced 
resolutions  1S7  calling  for  legislative  investigation  of  the 

187  The  Joel  resolutions  were  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  Charges  have  been  publicly  made  that  various 
forms  of  gambling-  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  this  State,  are  being 
openly  conducted  and  carried  on  in  the  city  and  county  of  San 
Francisco;    and 

"Whereas,  It  has  been  charged  and  admitted  by  the  chief  of 
police  of  said  city  and  county  that  many  of  the  officers  and 
members  of  said  department  were  either  incompetent,  negligent 
or  corrupt  in  the  performance  of  their  duties,  and  that  in  either 
event,    they   were    unfit    to   be    in    the    public    service;    and 

"Whereas,  It  is  also  charged  that  said  officers  and  members 
of  the  police  department  have  agreed  with  the  persons  conduct- 
ing said  gambling  games  to  allow  said  games  to  run  openly 
and  without  interference  and  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  this 
State;    and 

"Whereas,  It  is  also  charged  that  corruption  in  many  forms 
exists  in  the  ranks  of  the  officers,  and  members  of  said  de- 
partment in  dealing  with  people  who  are  violating  the  laws 
of    this    State;    and 

"Whereas,  Such  charges  have  been  given  wide  publicity  in 
the  press  of  this  State  and  of  other  States,  and  should,  there- 
fore, be  investigated  in  order  that  legislation  may  be  enacted 
that  will  enable  the  police  department  of  said  city  and  county 
of  San  Francisco  to  suppress  such  gambling  games  and  to  root 
out  such  corruption  in  the  ranks  of  the  officers  and  members 
of  said  police  department,  and  to  secure  the  conviction  and  pun- 
ishment of  the  guilty  parties,  and  to  recommend  such  legislative 
action  as  will  allow  the  said  police  department  and  the  officials 
immediately  in  control  thereof,  and  other  officials  of  said  city  and 
county  to  suppress  such  gambling  games  and  such  corruption  and 
to  prevent  a  repetition  of  the  same  and  to  punish  the  offenders; 
therefore,   be  it 

"Resolved,  That  a  select  committee  of  five  members  of  the 
Assembly  be  appointed  by  the  Speaker  to  thoroughly  investigate 
said  charges,  at  once,  and  to  report  its  findings  to  this  House, 
and  that  said  committee  have  full  power  to  subpoena  witnesses, 
administer  oaths,  take  testimony,  send  for  persons,  books,  tele- 
grams and  papers  and  any  other  evidence  that  it  may  in  its 
judgment  require,  and  to  employ  such  assistance  as  may  be 
necessary,  and  that  it  have  leave  to  sit  at  the  city  and  county 
of  San  Francisco  during  the  session  of  the  Assembly,  together 
with  such  other  powers  as  shall  be  necessary  for  a  full  per- 
formance of  its  duties,  and  to  report  fully  and  as  speedily  as 
possible  with  such  recommendations-  as  to  necessary  legislation 
in    the    premises    as    it    may    deem    proper." 


228       San  Francisco  and  the  Legislature 

San  Francisco  Police  Department.  The  proposed  in- 
vestigation promised  the  exposure  and  publicity  which 
must  come  before  there  will  be  correction.  But  the  Joel 
resolutions  were  not  adopted.  The  investigation  was 
not  held. 

But  should  San  Francisco's  impositions  press  the 
State's  impatience  to  the  limit  of  endurance,  the  way 
for  correction  which  Assemblyman  Joel  indicated  may 
be  followed. 


CHAPTER  XX. 
Legislature's  Work   Left  Uncompleted. 

The  1913  session  of  the  Legislature  adjourned  with 
work  uncompleted,  which  it  was  popularly  supposed 
would  be  taken  up  and  disposed  of  at  the  1915  session. 
But  in  not  a  single  instance  was  this  realized. 

The  State's  most  immediate  problem,  that  of  revenue 
and  taxation,  left  unsolved  at  the  1911  and  1913  ses- 
sions, was  left  unsolved  at  the  1915  session.  To  be  sure, 
the  way  was  provided  for  practical  work  in  1917,  but 
the  character  of  that  work  will  be  governed  by  the 
character  of  the  1917  Legislature.  The  corrupting  in- 
fluences in  State  government  have  in  this  issue  much 
at  stake.  That  they  will  resort  to  every  method  known 
to  corporation  politicians  to  control  the  1917  Legisla- 
ture must  be  recognized.  The  worth  of  the  plan  for 
the  solution  of  the  revenue  and  taxation  problem  at  the 
1917  session  is  yet  to  be  demonstrated. 

The  1915  Legislature  added  nothing  to  the  solution 
of  the  problem  of  the  alien  ownership  and  control  of 
land.  The  1913  Legislature  made  a  beginning  by  limit- 
ing land  ownership  by  aliens  not  eligible  to  citizenship 
to  the  land-holding  privileges  provided  for  in  the  then 
existing  treaties.  This  excluded  most  Asiatics  from 
the  privileges  of  land  ownership.  The  law  was  aimed 
at  the  Japanese,  and  affected  them  almost  exclusively. 
The  original  measure  did  not  permit  leasing  of  land  to 
such  aliens.     An  amendment  was  adopted,  however,  to 


230        Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted 

permit  leasing  for  periods  not  to  exceed  three  years.187a 
It  was  generally  understood  at  the  1913  session  that 
when  the  Legislature  met  in  1915  this  leasing  clause 
would  be  eliminated.  It  was  not.  The  only  expressed 
demand  for  its  removal  came  from  organized  labor. 

As  has  been  shown,  organized  labor,  when  depend- 
ing alone  upon  the  so-called  Union-Labor  Senators  and 
Assemblymen,  can  accomplish  nothing.  The  groups 
outside  the  Union-Labor  party,  whose  backing  had  at 
the  1911  and  1913  sessions  made  the  enactment  of  labor- 
supported  legislation  possible,  did  not  regard  the  time 
opportune  for  renewing  agitation  to  exclude  the  Japa- 
nese from  the  soil.  As  the  1913  Legislature  had  in 
effect  dealt  with  only  the  Japanese  phase  of  the  prob- 
lem, the  removing  of  the  leasing  clause  would  have 
affected — and  offended — Japanese  alone. 

There  is  no  good  reason,  however,  why  such  legis- 
lation should  be  so  worded  as  to  offend  the  Japanese. 

California's  alien-ownership  of  land  problem  is  an 
alien-ownership  problem  and  not  a  Japanese  problem. 
Should  ever  Legislature  convene  in  California  broad 
enough  to  deal  with  the  issue  as  what  it  is,  namely, 
an  alien-ownership  problem,  there  will  be  no  trouble 
with  the  Japanese  over  its  solution.  When  the  problem 
is  dealt  with  on  its  merits  there  will  be  no  discrimina- 
tion against  the  Japanese  or  any  other  people.  The 
offense  given  the  Japanese  thus  far  has  been  the  dis- 
crimination against  them  as  a  race.  There  has  been 
discrimination  because  of  the  influence  of  interests  alien 
to    California.      Occupation    of   California    soil   by   the 

187a  See   "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913." 


Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted        231 

Japanese  is  a  menace  of  the  future.  Exploitation  of 
California  soil  under  alien-ownership  or  control  other 
than  Asiatic  is  a  fact  of  to-day.  It  was  demonstrated 
at  the  session  of  1913  that  the  fact  of  to-day  is  what 
stands  in  the  way  of  effective  dealing  with  the  menace 
of  the  future.188 

The  only  suggestion  at  solution  of  the  problem  at 
the  1915  session  was  that  the  leasing  clause  be  struck 
from  the  Act  of  1913.  This  came  from  Organized  Labor. 
Mr.  Paul  Scharrenberg,  who  had  the  matter  in  charge, 
experienced  the  greatest  difficulty  in  even  getting  the 
bill  to  eliminate  the  leasing  clause  introduced.  And 
when  the  bill  was  introduced,  its  sponsor  was  not  a 
Union-Labor  member,  or  even  a  San  Francisco  mem- 
ber, but  Assemblyman  Shartel  from  the  mountains  of 
Modoc  county.189  The  measure  went  to  the  Assembly 
Committee  on  Federal  Relations.  The  farming  interests 
did  not  appear  before  the  committee  to  advocate  its 
passage,  nor  were  there  any  of  the  important  public 
hearings  which  marked  consideration  of  the  problem 
at  the  1913  session.  The  Associated  anti-Japanese 
Leagues  appeared  for  it,  as  did  the  anti-Jap  Laundry 
League  of  San  Francisco.  Representatives  of  these 
organizations  stated  their  "interest  in  the  measure  was 
on  economic  grounds  alone"  and  the  bill's  passage,  they 
held,  would  "relieve  our  agricultural  pursuits  from  the 

188  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913."  Chapter 
XVTII. 

189  Scharrenberg  had  the  same  difficulty  in  securing  intro- 
duction of  the  anti-Injunction  bill.  This  measure  passed  the  1911 
Senate,  and  came  within  a  few  votes  of  getting  through  the  1913 
Senate.  Finally,  after  many  refusals  of  members  to  introduce 
it,  Senator  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles  became  its  sponsor.  The 
measure    did    not    come    to    vote. 


232        Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted 

danger  of  Asiatic  competition,  and  make  it  easier  for 
the  cities  and  towns  to  resist  successfully  a  centralized 
Asiatic  menace." 

The  bill  remained  in  committee  until  the  last  day  of 
the  session,  when  it  was  returned  to  the  House  without 
recommendation. 

No  attempt  was  made  to  restrain  the  waste  of  Cali- 
fornia soil  by  gold-dredging.  At  the  1913  session  a  bill 
to  that  end — after  most  vigorous  opposition — failed  to 
pass  the  Senate.  The  problem  was  left  to  the  1915 
session.  But  in  1915  the  matter  was  not  considered  at 
all,  no  bill  to  that  end  being  introduced.190 

Another  failure  of  the  1915  Legislature  to  enact  leg- 
islation attempted  in  1913,  was  that  governing  fire  in- 
surance rating.  A  bill  providing  for  this  reform  was 
defeated  in  1913,  only  by  the  most  extraordinary  efforts 
of  the  agents  of  the  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the 


190  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913."  The  1913 
measure  to  prevent  sacrifice  of  soil  suitable  for  agricultural 
purposes  to  gold  dredging,  was  introduced  by  Senator  Kehoe. 
Outside  the  Sacramento  Bee,  it  had  little  newspaper  support. 
The  San  Francisco  Examiner  went  so  far  as  to  hint  at  question- 
able motives  back  of  its  introduction.  The  bill  had,  however, 
the  endorsement  of  such  men  as  Governor  George  C.  Pardee, 
Congressman  William  Kent  and  Francis  J.  Heney.  Neverthe- 
less, in  an  editorial  article  printed  July  13,  1915,  under  the  head- 
ing: "Does  this  kind  of  thing  pay?,"  the  San  Francisco  Exam- 
iner  says: 

"A  dredge  operator  has  purchased  1,500  acres  of  farm  land — 
fertile  and  under  ditch— in  Sierra  county  and  will  tear  up  the 
soil  to  get  the  placer  gold  in  it.  When  this  work  has  been 
done,  the  operator  may  have  recovered  several  hundred  thou- 
sands in  gold.  The  fertile  soil  will  be  ruined.  Suppose  the 
dredger  takes  out  $1,500,000  in  gold.  Fifteen  hundred  acres  of 
fertile  irrigated  farm  land  would  produce  that  much  wealth  in 
ten  years  and  the  land  would  still  lie  ready  to  the  use  of 
man.  It  seems  to  us  poor  economics  to  destroy  fertile  lands 
at  any  time  in  order  to  get  a  single  quick  profit  by  the 
destruction." 


Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted        233 

Pacific.191  In  spite  of  their  efforts,  however,  the  bill 
came  within  three  votes  of  passing  the  1913  Senate. 

There  was  nothing  particularly  radical  in  either  the 
measure  introduced  in  1913,  or  that  introduced  in  1915. 
Both  were  introduced  by  Kehoe  of  Humboldt.  Both 
provided  in  effect  that  the  schedules  which  fire  insurance 
companies  use  in  fixing  rates  shall  be  accessible  to  the 
public.191 

The  underwriters  contend  that  insurance  rates  are 
fixed  according  to  exact  formula,  which  they  insist  is 
fair  to  all.  The  Kehoe  bill  provided  that  this  formula 
— or  rating  schedule — should  be  filed  with  the  Insurance 
Commissioner  and  become  public  property.  All  such 
rating  schedules  were  required  to  show  the  considera- 
tions which  are  used  in  arriving  at  the  various  rates. 
Every  company  and  its  agents,  once  the  company  had 
elected  to  follow  a  given  rating  schedule,  were  required 
to  abide  by  such  schedule  until  another  should  be  sub- 
stituted. It  was  left  optional  with  the  company  to  file 
its  own  schedule,  or  adopt  the  schedule  of  a  rating 
bureau. 

The  purpose  of  the  Kehoe  bill  was  to  prevent  dis- 
crimination in  insurance  rates  between  individuals  and 
between  communities.  The  proponents  of  the  Kehoe 
bill  contended  that  it  would  do  away  with  most  of  the 
admitted  evils  of  fire  insurance. 

The  measure  was  not  an  innovation.  Similar  laws 
are  in  force  in  other  States.  In  Texas,  for  example, 
it  is  claimed  that  such  a  law  has  resulted  in  reduction 
of  insurance  rates  one-seventh.     As  the  fire  insurance 


191  See    Story    of    the    California    Legislature    of    1913,    chapters 
XIV,  XV. 


234        Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted 

premiums  paid  in  California  in  1914  amounted  to  $16,- 
000,000,  a  similar  reduction  in  this  State  would  mean 
a  saving  of  over  $2,000,000  a  year  for  those  who  take 
out  fire  insurance.  Such  a  saving  would  compare  favor- 
ably with  the  reductions  made  in  railroad  rates  by  the 
State  Railroad  Commission.  Indeed,  the  Kehoe  bill 
applied  practically  the  same  principles  to  fire  insurance 
which  the  Railroad  Regulation  law  applies  to  railroading. 

The  campaign  against  the  1915  bill  began  long  be- 
fore the  Legislature  convened.  An  agent  of  the  under- 
writers went  up  and  down  the  State  endeavoring  to 
undermine  plans  for  the  introduction  of  such  legislation. 
He  was  at  Los  Angeles ;  San  Francisco ;  and  Eureka, 
Senator  Kehoe's  home.  But  his  efforts  were  without 
success. 

Senator  Kehoe  introduced  the  bill.  After  the  meas- 
ure had  been  introduced,  its  opponents  adopted  other 
tactics. 

Letters  and  telegrams  condemning  the  measure  began 
to  pour  in  upon  the  members.  These  communications 
came  from  banks,  large  business  houses,  and  chambers 
of  commerce. 

The  similarity  of  these  letters  and  telegrams  showed 
pretty  conclusively  that  they  had  had  common  inspira- 
tion. The  testing  out  of  some  of  them  showed  that 
many  of  the  writers  had  not  read  the  bill,  nor  were 
they  familiar  with  its  terms,  or  with  the  conditions  which 
the  Legislature  was  attempting  to  correct. 

Nevertheless,  the  business  man  in  the  Legislature 
who  receives  a  letter  from  a  business  associate  urging 
him  to  vote  against  a  given  measure  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  "vicious,"  not  infrequently  tends  toward  taking 


Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted        235 

the  line  of  least  resistance ;  demanding,  What's  the 
use?;  and  voting  against  a  measure  which  he  realizes 
should  be  enacted  for  the  State's  best  interest. 

While  the  measure  was  pending  a  representative  of 
the  underwriters  went  to  Eureka  to  enlist  the  opposition 
of  Kehoe's  associates.  Their  evident  thought  was  that 
Kehoe  might,  through  his  friends,  be  induced  to  cease 
his  activities  for  such  legislation. 

The  first  intimation  that  Kehoe  had  of  this  move 
was  the  receipt  of  letters  from  friends  at  Eureka  warn- 
ing him  of  what  was  going  on.  These  friends  assured 
Kehoe  that  the  protests  which  might  be  expected  from 
Eureka  would  not  be  expressive  of  the  sentiments  of 
the  business  interests  of  that  community,  nor  of  the 
people.  As  predicted,  the  protests  soon  came  in.  Kehoe 
was  urged  from  home  to  drop  the  Insurance  Rating  bill. 
Similar  letters  and  telegrams  from  Eureka  also  reached 
other  members.  But  the  campaign  of  opposition  and 
the  methods  employed  were  too  transparent  to  mislead 
any  one.192 

192  One  of  the  strongest  protests  against  the  enactment  of  the 
Kehoe  Insurance  Rating  bill  came  from  the  so-called  "Civic 
League  of  Improvement  Clubs  and  Associations  of  San  Fran- 
cisco." The  organization  and  its  activities  are  not  unknown  to 
those  who  have  followed  conditions  in  that  city.  At  the  head 
of  the  organization  as  president,  is  Dr.   Julius  Rosenstirn. 

Dr.  Julius  Rosenstirn  was  at  the  head,  practically  the  origi- 
nator, and  certainly  the  most  constant  defender  of  San  Fran- 
cisco's notorious  "municipal  clinic."  One  of  the  things  which 
can  be  said  to  San  Francisco's  advantage  is  that  this  "clinic" 
is  no  longer  tolerated.  Dr.  Julius  Rosenstirn  was  head  and 
front  of  the  opposition  to  the  Redlight  Abatement  act  when  that 
measure  was  before  the  electors  last  year.  He  wrote  the  ad- 
verse minority  report  of  the  Redlight  Abatement  Committee  of 
the  San  Francisco  Commonwealth  Club.  The  most  significant 
fact  about  this  report  is  that  a  document  containing  such 
glaring  inaccuracies — if  not  misrepresentations — could  come  from 
an  organization  of  the  repute  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  of  San 
Francisco. 

The    Civic    League    of    Improvement    Clubs    and    Associations    of 


236        Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted 

Then  came  committee  delays,  not  unlike  those  which 
had  attended  consideration  of  the  1913  measure.  When, 
however,  the  bill  was  finally  brought  to  vote  in  the  Sen- 
ate Committee  on  Insurance,  it  was  by  vote  of  6  to  4 
sent  back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it 
become  a  law.  Senators  Thompson,  Butler,  Benedict, 
Kehoe,  Ballard  and  Slater  voted  for  this  recommenda- 
tion. Senators  Wolfe,  Shearer,  Cohn  and  Crowley  voted 
against  it. 

On  the  floor  of  the  Senate  the  fight  against  the  bill 
was  led  by  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco ;  Cohn  of  Sacra- 
mento, himself  interested  in  an  insurance  company ;  and 
Campbell  of  San  Luis  Obispo. 

The  most  extraordinary  feature  of  their  presentation 
was  that  none  of  them  was  agreed  as  to  what  the  effect 
of  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  be.  Cohn  argued  that 
it  would  be  ruinous  to  the  insurance  companies.  Wolfe 
held  that  instead  of  saving  the  people  money  it  would 
have  exactly  the  opposite  effect.  Campbell  held  to  the 
theory  that  under  the  measure  the  Insurance  Commis- 
sioner would  be  required  to  fix  insurance  rates.  As 
there  was  no  such  provision  in  the  bill,  and  nothing 
can  be  read  into  it  to  give  the  Insurance  Commissioner 
that  power,  Campbell's  argument  fell  flat. 

Campbell  made  much  of  the  fact  that  none  who  pay 
insurance  rates  had  appeared  before  committees  to  ad- 
vocate the  measure's  passage.  That  is,  indeed,  true,  but 
the  probabilities  are  that  not  one  rate-payer  in  a  hun- 

San    Francisco,    of   course,    found    against    the    Redlight    Abatement 
act,    and    advised    the    electors    to    vote    against    it. 

And  when  the  Kehoe  Rating  Insurance  bill  was  before  the 
1915  Senate,  we  find  the  "Civic  League  of  Improvement  Clubs 
and  Associations,"  in  an  entirely  new  field  of  endeavor,  urging 
against   its   passage. 


Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted        237 

dred  knew  that  such  a  bill  was  pending.  Even  though 
they  had,  without  organization  it  was  practically  impos- 
sible for  them  to  have  been  represented  at  committee 
hearings.  The  fact  that  the  rate-payers  had  not  ap- 
peared merely  illustrates  again  the  inability  of  the  great 
mass  of  the  people  to  be  represented  adequately  at  leg- 
islative hearings.  The  paying-public  was  not  represented 
at  insurance  hearings  any  more  than  it  is  represented 
when  other  matters  of  vital  public  interest  are  under 
consideration. 

But  the  insurance  companies  were  well  represented, 
precisely  as  the  railroad  companies,  the  gas  companies, 
the  telephone  companies,  the  water  companies  and  all 
other  large  interests  are  well  represented  when  matters 
affecting  the  public  on  one  side  and  large  concerns  on 
the  other,  are  before  the  Legislature. 

When  all  was  said  and  done,  none  of  those  who 
spoke  against  the  bill  met  the  arguments  which  were 
advanced  in  favor  of  its  passage,  nor  were  they  able  to 
give  convincing  reasons  in  support  of  their  contention 
that  the  bill  should  be  defeated.193 

Kehoe  in  closing  the  debate  showed  the  utter  incon- 
sistency of  those  who  were  opposing  the  measure. 

It  was  generally  known  that  the  block  of  San  Fran- 

193  Senator  Butler  of  Los  Angeles,  in  urging  the  bill's  passage, 
emphasized    the    inconsistency    of    its    opponents. 

"If,"  said  Butler,  "this  bill  will  do  all  that  the  gentlemen 
opposing  it  have  said  of  it  it  is  a  marvel.  According  to  its 
opponents,    the   bill    will: 

"(1)  Raise  insurance  rates  to  such  a  point  that  the  insurers 
will   not  be   able   to  carry   insurance. 

"(2)  Reduce  rates  to  such  an  extent  that  no  insurance  com- 
pany  will    want    to    do   business    in    California. 

"(3)  Wipe  out  competition  so  that  companies  can  charge 
extortionate    rates. 

"(4)  Bring  about  such  keen  competition  that  insurance  com- 
panies  will    be    forced   out   of   business." 


238        Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted 

cisco  votes  was  to  be  cast  against  the  bill.  Kehoe  ex- 
pressed astonishment  that  the  San  Francisco  members 
should  oppose  such  a  measure.  Conditions  at  San  Fran- 
cisco are  such,  he  contended,  that  that  community,  more 
than  any  other  in  the  State,  would  profit  by  the  enact- 
ment of  such  a  law.  Two  years  before,  San  Franciscans 
had  been  responsible  for  the  introduction  of  bills 194 
which  outlawed  combinations  of  insurance  companies. 
The  temper  of  San  Francisco  was  such  at  the  time, 
that  the  Fire  Underwriters  were  prepared  to  accept  such 
legislation  as  the  Kehoe  bill  to  escape  the  more  drastic 
provisions  of  the  San  Francisco  measures.  Kehoe  stated 
that  out  of  every  $100  San  Francisco  pays  for  fire  in- 
surance premiums,  only  $17  is  paid  back  as  fire  losses. 

Wolfe  interrupted  Kehoe  to  ask  whether,  if  he  were 
from  San  Francisco,  he  would  be  governed  by  the  argu- 
ment which  Kehoe  was  making  or  by  the  expressions  of 
the  San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  large 
interests. 

"I  would,"  replied  Kehoe,  "use  my  own  judgment. 
You  know,  Senator  Wolfe,  how  much  value  there  is  to 
be  placed  upon  such  expressions.  It  is  surprising  to 
me  that  members   of  the   San   Francisco   delegation,   at 


194  These  bills  were  introduced  at  the  1913  session  by  Gerdes 
of  San  Francisco,  who,  in  1915,  voted  against  the  Kehoe  bill. 
They  had  been  drawn  by  former  Chief  Justice  Matt  I.  Sullivan, 
who  was  acting  for  the  San  Francisco  Mission  Promotion  Asso- 
ciation. The  Sullivan  bills  outlawed  such  organizations  as  the 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters  of  the  Pacific.  The  measures  pro- 
vided that  every  contract  and  policy  of  insurance  should  be 
construed  to  mean  that  in  the  event  of  loss  or  damage  there- 
under, the  insured  could,  in  addition  to  the  actual  loss  or  damage 
suffered,  recover  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  such 
actual  loss  if  he  could  show  that  the  insurance  company  in 
which  he  was  insured  were  a  member  of  any  insurance-company 
combine.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913," 
Chapters   XIV   and   XV. 


Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted        239 

the  request  of  the  big  fellows,  should  vote  in  opposition 
to  the  interests  of  the  little  fellows  who  cannot  defend 
themselves." 

Kehoe  contended  that  the  passage  of  the  bill  would 
result  in  saving  for  the  people  of  California  in  two 
ways: 

(1)  A  saving  in  insurance  rates.  The  establishment 
of  uniform  rates  under  such  laws  in  other  States  has 
resulted  in  important  reductions.  In  Texas,  Kehoe  con- 
tended, the  rates  had  been  reduced  one-seventh.  The 
same  reduction  in  California  would  mean,  a  saving  to 
insurance-rate  payers  of  $2,000,000  a  year. 

(2)  When  the  elements  of  fire  hazard  are  generally 
known,  he  held,  communities  and  individuals  would 
guard  against  such  hazards.  This  would  mean  reduc- 
tion in  fire  losses,  and  again  result  in  saving. 

"Disposition  of  the  $2,000,000  which  can  be  saved 
the  insuring  public,"  said  Kehoe,  in  conclusion,  "is  in 
the  hands  of  this  Senate.  You  can  throw  the  $2,000,000 
to  the  insurance  companies,  or  you  can  throw  it  to  the 
insuring  public." 

The  Senate  by  a  vote  of  14  to  24  195  refused  the  bill 
passage. 

Following  the  defeat  of  the  bill,  Senator  Kehoe  in- 
troduced a  resolution  calling  for  the  appointment  of  a 

195  The  vote  on  the  Kehoe  Insurance  Rating  bill  was  as 
follows,  the  names  of  the  San  Francisco  members  being  printed 
in  black  type: 

For  the  Kehoe  bill — Anderson,  Ballard,  Benedict,  Birdsall, 
Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Chandler,  Duncan,  Jones,  Kehoe,  Lyon, 
Mott,    and    Thompson — 14. 

Against  the  Kehoe  bill — Beban,  Benson,  Breed,  Campbell, 
Cogswell,  Cohn,  Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Hans, 
Irwin,  Luce,  Maddux,  Owens,  Purkitt,  Scott,  Shearer,  Slater, 
Strobridge,    Stuckenbruck,    Tyrrell   and    Wolfe — 24. 


240        Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted 

committee  of  five  Senators  to  investigate  into  the  activi- 
ties of  fire  insurance  associations  in  California.  The 
resolutions  provided  that  the  committee  should  report 
at  the  1917  session.  For  the  purposes  of  the  investiga- 
tion, $1000  was  provided  out  of  the  Senate's  contingent 
fund. 

As  the  resolution  carried  an  appropriation  from  the 
contingent  fund,  it  went  to  the  Committee  on  Contingent 
Expenses.  The  committee  consisted  of  Beban,  Purkett 
and  Lyon.  Lyon  was  for  the  resolution.  Purkett  was 
against  it.  Beban  joined  with  Lyon  in  voting  to  return 
it  to  the  Senate,  but  reserved  the  right  to  vote  against 
it  on  the  Senate  floor.  The  votes  of  Lyon  and  Beban 
sent  the  resolution  back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  it  be  adopted. 

The  insurance  lobby  flocked  back  to  Sacramento. 
They  resisted  the  proposed  investigation  as  bitterly  as 
they  had  opposed  the  passage  of  the  Insurance  Rating 
bill. 

For  its  adoption,  the  resolution  required  the  votes  of 
a  majority  of  those  voting  only,  not  a  majority  vote  of 
the  Senate. 

When  it  came  up  in  the  Senate,  Wolfe  and  Camp- 
bell led  the  opposition.  Kehoe,  Benson  and  Butler  urged 
its  adoption.  The  roll-call  showed  fifteen  Senators  pres- 
ent for  it;  fifteen  against  it. 

Kehoe  moved  a  call  of  the  Senate  that  the  absent 
members  might  be  brought  in.  The  fight  was  kept  up 
until  after  T  o'clock  in  the  morning.  At  the  final  vote 
the    Insurance    Lobby    again    won    by    narrow    margin. 


Legislature's  Work  Uncompleted        241 

Seventeen    Senators    voted    for    the    Kehoe    resolution, 
eighteen  voted  against  it.196 

196  The  vote  by  which  the  Kehoe  resolution  was  refused 
adoption    was    as    follows: 

For  the  resolution — Anderson,  Benedict,  Benson,  Birdsall, 
Brown,  Butler,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cogswell,  Duncan,  Jones,  Kehoe, 
King,   Luce,    Maddux,   Slater,    and   Thompson — 17. 

Against  the  resolution — Ballard,  Beban,  Breed,  Campbell,  Cohn, 
Crowley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Irwin,  Mott,  Owens,  Purkitt, 
Scott,    Shearer,    Stuckenbruck,    Tyrrell,   and   Wolfe — 18. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

Conclusion. 

The  1915  Legislature  has  been  described  as  stupid 
but  honest.  Ineffective  better  terms  it.  The  same  could 
have  been  said  of  the  session  of  1913.  Both  sessions 
demonstrated  that  the  California  Legislature,  when  con- 
fronted with  large  problems,  breaks  down,  is  ineffective. 
As  at  present  constituted,  it  has  neither  the  time  nor  the 
machinery  to  meet  the  obligations  which  are  imposed 
upon  it.197 

197  This  was  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  impeachment  proceed- 
ings against  Superior  Judge  John  L.  Childs  of  Del  Norte  County. 
Grave  charges  had  been  made  against  Childs  by  certain  Del  Norte 
county  people.  The  complainants  requested  that  the  Legislature 
institute  impeachment  proceedings.  Such  proceedings  originate  in 
the  Assembly,  and,  if  the  Assembly  find  impeachment  trial  war- 
ranted, are  tried  in  the  Senate.  The  Assembly  delegated  the  mat- 
ter to  the  Assembly  Judiciary  Committee,  and  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee delegated  it  to  a  sub-committee  of  five  members  consisting 
of  Johnson,  Brown  of  San  Mateo,  Edwards,  McKnight  and  Sat- 
terwhite. 

This  sub-committee  held  exhaustive  hearings  which  occupied  sev- 
eral weeks.  For  a  time,  the  investigation  over-shadowed  the  reg- 
ular work  of  the  Legislature.  Because  of  the  committee's  work 
the  period  of  the  session  was  prolonged  for  a  week  or  more.  Had 
the  sub-committee  recommended  impeachment,  the  matter  would 
have  been  thrashed  out  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  which  would 
have  required  several  months.  Had  the  Assembly  decided  for  im- 
peachment trial,  the  trial  before  the  Senate  would  have  required 
additional  months  of  time.  The  Legislature  would  have  had  to  re- 
main in  session  indefinitely,  the  members  giving  their  time  with- 
out compensation.  As  the  case  developed,  the  fear  was  frankly 
expressed  that  trial  might  be  ordered.  It  was  generally  admitted 
that  the  Legislature  could  not  handle  such  a  trial.  To  every- 
body's relief,  however,  the  sub-committee  recommended  that  Childs 
be  not  impeached.  This  recommendation  saved  the  situation.  Nev- 
ertheless the  committee,  after  setting  forth  their  findings,  which 
were  largely  against  Judge  Childs,  concluded:  "That  said  Childs 
has  not  been  a  model  judge.  He  has  taken  altogether  too  active 
a  part  in  politics;  he  has  participated  too  frequently  in  the  busi- 
ness activities  and  enterprises  in  his  county  and  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  same  has  interfered  with  his  judicial  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities, and  his  conduct  as  a  jurist,  as  testified  to  by  said  Childs 


Conclusion  243 

Admittedly,  the  old  "boodle"  methods  were  not 
practised  at  the  1915  session. 

Formerly,  a  seat  in  the  Senate  was  regarded  as 
worth  at  least  $20,000  a  session.  As  a  surer  means  of 
holding  the  legislators  than  direct  payment  of  bribe 
money,  special-privilege-seeking  concerns,  in  the  old 
days,  sent  up  their  able  lawyers  to  sit  as  legislators  to 
forward  the  designs,  or  protect  the  interests  of  their 
employers.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  such  methods, 
the  presence  of  clever  adventurers  and  corporation  law- 
yers in  the  Legislature  at  least  saved  the  sessions  from 
the  charge  of  "stupidity"  and  the  sneer  of  "honesty." 


himself,  more  than  any  other  witness,  justifies  much  criticism  of 
his  conduct.  His  judicial  indiscretions  and  improprieties  have 
been  of  such  a  degree  and  character  and  frequency  that  we  deem 
that  his  future  usefulness  as  Superior  Judge-  of  Del  Norte  county 
is  seriously  and  permanently  impaired,  but  your  sub-committee 
are  of  the  opinion  that  he  has  not  been  dishonest  as  a  Judge  or 
committed  actions  showing  moral  turpitude." 

A  very  considerable  minority  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  re- 
fused to  concur  in  this  view,  but  held  that  impeachment  trial 
should  be  ordered. 

"Whether  or  no,"  said  this  minority,  "the  Senate  may  deem 
the  acts  in  question  as  proper,  or  as  too  trivial  for  consideration, 
is  no  concern  of  the  Assembly.  In  our  opinion  the  misconduct  is 
far  from  trivial.  It  is  for  this  body  to  determine  what  is  the 
proper  policy  to  be  established  by  the  Legislature  in  cases  of  this 
kind,  and  to  determine  what  standard  of  conduct  should  be  in- 
sisted upon  in  judicial  officers,  and  if  we  believe  that  the  accused 
has  been  guilty  of  impeachable  misconduct,  it  is  our  duty  so  to 
declare  and  leave  to  the  Senate  its  own  responsibility.  The  ques- 
tion presented  by  the  report  of  the  sub-committee  is  whether  its 
findings  justify  the  filing  of  articles  of  impeachment.  In  this  re- 
gard we  are  compelled  to  accept  the  findings  and  can  not  go  be- 
hind them  without  reviewing  the  great  mass  of  testimony  intro- 
duced. In  view  of  the  findings  made  by  the  sub-committee,  the 
undersigned  minority  can  not  subscribe  to  the  report,  asking  that 
the  said  John  L.  Childs  be  not  impeached,  but  on  the  contrary  be- 
lieve that  the  findings  warrant  articles  of  impeachment  being  pre- 
sented against  the  said  John  L.  Childs  by  this  Assembly,  and  we 
do  so  recommend." 

For  complete  findings  in  Childs'  case,  see  Assembly  Journal  for 
May  6,  1915.  The  investigation  cost  the  State  $5,112.15,  exclusive 
of  the  time  of  the  Assembly.  The  expenses  of  trial  before  the 
Senate  would  have  been  greatly  in  excess  of  that  sum.  The  inci- 
dent demonstrated  that  impeachment  proceedings  before  the  Cali- 
fornia State  Legislature  are  impracticable.  The  Legislature  has 
neither  the  time  nor  the  machinery  for  effective  prosecution  of  an 
impeachment  case. 


244  Conclusion 

At  the  1915  session,  Senate  leaders  did  not  sit  down 
to  gambling  games  with  race-track  gamblers  to  earn 
easy  winnings  up  to  an  amount  of  the  selling  price  of 
a  vote  in  favor  of  the  gambling  element. 

If  any  such  payments  were  made  in  Senate  or  As- 
sembly, they  were  made  as  "attorneys'  fees"  to  such 
members  as  would  accept  such  (from  the  standpoint  of 
some  lawyers)  legitimate  compensation,  for  protecting 
gamblers,  liquor  concerns  and  other  vice  interests.  Nor 
were  there  brilliant  corporation  attorneys  on  the  floor 
of  Senate  and  Assembly  to  guard  large  interests.  The 
corporations  confined  such  talent  to  their  lobby. 

In  these  respects  the  personnel  of  the  1915  Legis- 
lature was  decidedly  better  than  that  of  the  Legisla- 
tures of  the  old  machine  days.  The  average  man  could 
get  a  squarer  deal — at  any  rate  a  more  respectful  hear- 
ing— than  was  possible  when  the  "machine"  ruled. 

But  the  Legislature  of  1915  failed  to  do  its  work. 
Because  of  this  failure,  and  similar  failures  of  previous 
Legislatures,  the  public  suffers  and  the  special-privilege- 
enjoying  interests  are  able  to  strengthen  their  position 
and  gain  ground.  The  drift  cannot  continue  indefinitely. 
That,  all  groups  recognize. 

Thoughtful  members  of  the  1913  Legislature  recog- 
nized that  the  most  important  problem  before  the  1913 
Legislature  was  the  Legislature  itself.  On  the  theory 
that  the  1915  Legislature  would  follow  up  the  work, 
members  of  the  1913  session  undertook  to  find  solu- 
tion.198 Several  constitutional  amendments  proposing 
radical    changes   in   the    legislative   system    were   intro- 


198  See    "Story  of  the   California   Legislature   of   1913,"    Chapter 
XXIX. 


Conclusion  245 

duced  as  basis  for  consideration  and  debate.  The 
most  discussed  proposed  a  Legislature  of  one  House 
to  consist  of  forty  members,  who  would  be  in  prac- 
tically continuous  session.  It  was  thought  that  the 
1915  Legislature  would,  because  of  the  discussion  thus 
created,  have  something  better  to  offer.  But  the  1915 
Legislature  dully  left  the  issue  unconsidered. 

To  be  sure,  Senator  A.  E.  Campbell  did  introduce 
a  constitutional  amendment  similar  to  that  which  had 
been  proposed  in  1913  to  put  the  Legislature  on  the  one- 
House  basis.  But  the  measure  got  no  further  than  the 
committee  to  which  it  was  referred.199 

As  another  solution  of  the  problem  complete  revision 
of  the  State  Constitution  is  recommended.  It  is  con- 
tended that  an   effectively   working  Legislature  is  im- 

199  The  expression  of  the  press  throughout  the  State  has  been 
adverse  to  the  one-House  plan.  This  attitude  was  well  presented 
in  the  Pasadena  Star,  in  its  issue  of  January  18,  1915.  The  Star 
said: 

"Attempt  has  been  made,  in  several  States,  to  abolish  the 
upper  house  of  the  State  Legislatures  and  have  but  one  legisla- 
tive house.  These  movements  originate  in  and  proceed  upon  the 
theory  that  the  two  houses  of  Legislatures  often  are  in  conflict 
over  projected  legislation,  and  that  these  clashes  either  greatly 
delay  some  legislation  or  else  force  compromises  that  divest  the 
proposed  laws  of  much  of  their  wholesomeness.  There  is  a  meas- 
ure of  strength  in  this  argument.  And  yet  there  is  no  assurance 
that  a  Legislature  composed  of  but  one  house,  might  not  become 
deadlocked  and  filibustered  into  just  as  perplexing  delays  and  com- 
promises,  through   differences   of  opinion  among  its   members. 

"It  would  seem  that,  with  all  members  of  both  houses  of  all 
legislative  bodies  in  this  country — National  and  State — now  elected 
by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  there  is  not  much  to  be  feared  from 
reactionism  in  either  branch  of  any  Legislature,  as  members  of 
both  legislative  houses  are  equally  under  bond  to  the  people  to 
observe  their  pledges  and  to  work  in  accordance  with  the  people's 
will,   insofar  as   that  will  may  be  known. 

"The  two-house  legislative  system  tends  toward  greater  delib- 
eration in  legislating.  Progressive  in  governmental  affairs  as 
Americans  are  to-day,  this  progressiveness  should  not  be  miscon- 
strued as  being  synonymous  with  precipitancy.  Our  progressive- 
ness, to  be  sound,  useful  and  enduring,  must  be  tempered  with  de- 
liberation and  must  be  matured  by  counseling.  Two  legislative 
houses  may  and  oftentimes  do  exert  reflex  influences  upon  each 
other,  which  impel  both  houses  to  strive  to  effect  the  best  legis- 
lation possible,  as  flawless  as  possible,  and  representing  matured 
judgment." 


246  Conclusion 

possible  under  the  present  Constitution.  It  is  held — and 
there  is  good  reason  for  the  contention — that  the  Con- 
stitution is  not  a  constitution,  but  a  complex  and  de- 
tailed codex  of  laws. 

"No  legislation,"  says  the  Fresno  Republican,200  "on 
a  subject  mentioned  in  the  constitution  is  ordinarily 
possible  without  an  express  amendment  authorizing 
it;  and  when  that  amendment  is  adopted,  to  authorize 
a  certain  law,  it  thereby  prevents  the  subsequent 
passage  of  any  other  law,  until  the  same  process  is 
gone  through  again.  Thus,  paradoxically,  the  more 
power  we  give  to  the  Legislature,  the  less  power  it 
has ;  and  the  more  we  amend  the  Constitution,  the 
more  amending  it  needs.  The  evil  is  incurable  and 
self -multiplying,  and  it  is  nobody's  fault." 

Those  who  hold  to  this  view  contend  that  relief  will 
come  when  California  adopts  a  thorough-going  new 
Constitution  on  the   Federal  model. 

But  apparently,  the  people  of  California  are  as  far 
from  authorizing  a  constitutional  convention,  as  they 
are  from  authorizing  a  one-House  Legislature.  At  the 
1914  November  elections,  by  a  vote  of  442,687  to 
180,111,  they  rejected  a  plan  to  call  a  convention  to  pro- 
pose a  new  Constitution. 

So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  no  other  plans  for 
strengthening  the  State's  legislative  system  have  been 
proposed. 

Back  of  the  situation  is,  of  course,  the  indifference 
of  the  public. 

The   Legislature   continues   ineffective    for  precisely 

200  The  Republican  is  edited  by  Chester  H.  Rowell,  one  of  the 
best  informed  men  on  public  questions  in  the  State.  The  quota- 
tion is  from  the  Republican   of  January  17,  1915. 


Conclusion  247 

the  same  reason  that  at  the  special  election  of  1915,  at 
which  measures  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  State 
were  voted  upon,  out  of  a  registration  of  approximately 
1,250,000,  only  260,000  voted. 

Here  is  involved  a  problem  to  which  that  of  legis- 
lative effectiveness  is  but  incidental. 

We  may  drift  long,  but  sooner  or  later  the  problem 
must  be  met.  It  is  a  problem  which  confronts  not  Cali- 
fornia alone,  but  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  And,  for 
that  matter,  the  Union  itself. 


APPENDIX 


TABLES    OF   VOTES 

The  votes  included  in  the  accompanying  tables  are 
divided  under  two  heads: 

(1)  Those  dealing  with  so-called  Progressive  policies — 
Tables   I  and  II. 

(2)  Those  dealing  with  so-called  moral  issues — Tables 
III  and  IV. 

In  selecting  measures  for  tabulation  it  has  not  been  the 
intention  to  pass  arbitrarily  upon  the  measures  as  good  or 
bad.  The  reader  is,  however,  furnished  data  showing  how 
the  several  legislators  voted  on  the  measures  covered.  He 
can  from  this  data  estimate  the  records  of  the  various 
members  for  himself. 


TABLE    I.     SENATE    VOTES    ON    PROGRESSIVE 
POLICIES. 

A.  Vote  on  proposition  to  extend  terms  of  incumbent 
superior  judges  from  six  to  twelve  years.  See  Chapter 
XVII,  page  204. 

B.  Vote  on  Kehoe  Insurance  Rating  Bill.  See  Chapter 
XX,    page   229. 

C.  Final  vote  on  Senate  Bill  345,  Butler  Dry  Zone 
Bill.     See    Chapter    XIII,    page    143. 

D.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  715,  State  Non-Partisan 
Bill.     See    Chapter   X,   page   109. 

E.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1456,  Form  of  Ballot  Bill. 
See   Chapter  X,  page   109. 

F.  Vote  on  Kehoe  amendment  to  the  resolution  pro- 
viding that  the  members  of  the  Legislature  should  at  the 
State's  expense  visit  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  at  San 
Francisco.  Kehoe's  amendment  struck  from  the  resolution 
the  provision  that  the  State  should  bear  the  expense  of  the 


junket,  thus  leaving  the  several  members  to  pay  their  own 
expenses. 

G.  Vote  on  Kehoe's  resolution  providing  for  a  legis- 
lative investigation  of  the  methods  of  fire  insurance  asso- 
ciations.    See    Chapter   XX,   page   229. 


TABLE    II.     ASSEMBLY    VOTES    ON    PROGRESSIVE 
POLICIES. 

A.  Vote  on  proposition  to  extend  terms  of  incumbent 
superior  judges  from  six  to  twelve  years.  See  Chapter 
XVIII,    page   204. 

B.  First  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1530,  Jitney  Bus  Bill. 
See   Chapter  VI,   page  54. 

C.  Final  vote  on  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment 
No.  40   (Bruck   Amendment).     See    Chapter  XII,    page    133. 

D.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  715,  State  Non-Partisan  Bill. 
See    Chapter    X,    page    109. 

E.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1456,  Form  of  Ballot  Bill. 
See   Chapter  X,  page   109. 

F.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1457,  Presidential  Primary 
Bill.     See    Chapter   X,    page    109. 

G.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1526,  Registration  Bill.  See 
Chapter   X,    page    109. 

H.  Vote  on  amendment  to  resolution  providing  that 
the  members  of  the  Legislature  should  attend  the  San 
Diego  Exposition  at  the  State's  expense.  The  amendment 
struck  from  the  resolution  the  provision  that  the  State 
should   bear    the    expense   of   the   junket. 

I.  Vote  on  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  motion  that 
itemized  account  of  the  expenses  of  the  "junket"  to  the 
San    Diego    Exposition    should    be    rendered. 

J.  Vote  on  Quinn's  amendment  to  the  resolution  pro- 
viding that  the  members  of  the  Legislature  should  at  the 
State's  expense  visit  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  at  San 
Francisco.  Quinn's  amendment  provided  that  the  provis- 
ion  that   the   State   should   bear   the   expense   of   the  junket 


should  be  struck  from  the  resolution.  The  several  mem- 
bers would,  had  Quinn's  motion  prevailed,  have  been  left 
to   pay   their   own   expenses. 


TABLE    III.     SENATE    VOTES    ON    SO-CALLED 
MORAL  ISSUES. 

A.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  22,  making  property  re- 
sponsible for  illegal  liquor  trade.     See  Chapter  XI,  page  120. 

B.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  675,  prohibiting  distribution 
of  alcoholic  liquor  in  school  houses.  See  Chapter  XI, 
page    120. 

C.  First  vote  on  Senate  Bill  343,  Butler  Dry  Zone 
Bill.      See    Chapter   XIII,   page    143. 

D.  Second  vote  on  Senate  Bill  343,  Butler  Dry  Zone 
Bill.      See    Chapter   XIII,    page    143. 

E.  Vote  on  Senate  Bill  392,  requiring  public  school 
education  in  nature  of  narcotics.     See  Chapter  XI,  page  120. 


TABLE    IV.     ASSEMBLY  VOTES   ON    SO-CALLED 
MORAL  ISSUES. 

A.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  22,  making  property  re- 
sponsible for  illegal  liquor  trade.     See  Chapter  XI,  page  120. 

B.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  675,  prohibiting  distribution 
of  alcoholic  liquor  in  school  houses.  See  Chapter  XI, 
page    120. 

C.  First  vote  on  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment 
40    (Bruck    Amendment).      See    Chapter   XII,   page    133. 

D.  Second  vote  on  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment 
40    (Bruck  Amendment).     See   Chapter  XII,  page    133. 

E.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  236,  prohibiting  gambling 
with  dice,  cards,  etc.     See  Chapter  XI,  page  120. 

F.  Vote  on  Assembly  Bill  1518,  prohibiting  sale  of 
intoxicants   in   baseball   parks.     See   Chapter   XI,    page    120. 

G.  Vote  on  Senate  Bill  392,  requiring  public  school 
education  in  nature  of  narcotics.  See  Chapter  XI,  page 
120. 


Table  I — Records  of  Senators  on  Seven  Test  Votes 


1      A 

>     Si 

•a  o 

ri 

s 

o 

o 

O    ' 

i 

TOTALS. 

M 

B'u 

X  a 

CD 

H 

FQ 

c  o 

to 

03 

CD  3 

tu 

BQ 

c 

a 

N 

co 

o 

fcn 

3 

10 

3 

For  Key 

again 
mben 
ears. 

3 

So 

>> 

u 

Q 

s 

c 
wg 

u 
0 

3    . 
O  CD 

1 

£ 

CD 
> 

See 

ug* 

2* 

CD 

s 

fc 

o<_, 

CO 

Page   i. 

0  c«2 
t>HH 

1  CO  o 

14  1 

3^ 
fflg 

o 

1  „• 

1 

CO 
V3 

*J  3 
.  0 

-b  o 

Si 

o  t- 

> 

to 

CD 
5 

o 

C.  A.  2- 
ing  term 
Judges  t 

05J3 
CM  M 

M.S 

1 

«  a 

mg 

s 

03  3 

CD  CO 

si 

Eg 

o 
s- 

Pu 

u 

-    u 
Ph 
■m 
to 

3 

"3 

bJD 

3 
CD 

to 

JO 

CO 

w 

02 

< 

<i 

M 

M 

% 

«! 

< 

Aye|  No||Aye|  No||Aye|  No||Aye|  No||Aye|  No||Aye|  No 

|Aye|  No 

1 

0 

* 

1 

* 

*  1 

* 

1 

1*1        1 

5 

2 

0 

Ballard    

* 

1 

o  1 

1  o 

* 

1  *  1 

1      1  o  | 

3 

3 

1 

0 

o  1 

0  1 

*  1 

* 

1      1 

I  °  ! 

2 

4 

1 

* 

* 

* 

*  1 

* 

1  *  1 

* 

7 

0 

0 

1  o 

0  1 

* 

1  *  1 

* 

1  * 

1*1     I 

5    |    2 

0 

*  1    II  *  1 

1  °  1 

1  *  1 

1  * 

1  * 

I  *  l 

6 

1 

0 

1  o 

o  1 

*  1 

*  I    1 

1  * 

o 

0 

3 

4 

0 

*    1 

*  1 

* 
* 

1 

* 

* 

* 

*  1 

1  * 

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 

7 
7 

0 
0 

0 

Butler    

0 

*  1 

o  1 

* 

1  o 

* 

* 

0 

4 

3 

0 

*    1 

* 

1 

* 

*  1 

1  * 

*  i 

* 

7 

0 

0 

* 

* 

1 

* 

*  1 

1  * 

*  1 

* 

7 

0 

0 

1  ° 

o  1 

* 

1 

*  1 

* 

0 

* 

4 

3 

0 

Conn   

1  o 

o  1 

o  1 

* 

* 

0 

0 

2 

5 

0 

1  o 

o  1 

o  1 

* 

1  * 

0 

0 

2 

5 

0 

* 

* 

( 

* 

1 

0 

1 

0 

* 

* 

5 

2 

0 

0 

o  1 

0  1 
0  1 

0  1 
0 

* 
* 

1  * 

1  * 

0 
0 

2 
2 

4 
4 

1 

1 

Flint     

* 

0 

o  1 
o  1 

0   1 

* 

1 

1 

1  * 

0 
0 

0 

3 
2 

4 
4 

0 

1* 

1 

1  o 

o  1 

0   1 

0 

3 

4 

*    1 

1  o 

* 

o  1 
1 

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

* 

0 

3 
6 

3 

1 

1 

0 

*    1 

*  1 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

7 

0 

0 

King    

*  1    1 

1 

* 

1 

* 

* 

* 

* 

6 

0 

1 

*  1    1 

o  I 

* 

* 

* 

* 

! 

* 

6 

1 

0 

1   0   | 

* 

1 

<)  1 

* 

0 

3 

3 

1 

1  o  1 

o  1 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

5 

2 

0 

Mott    I 

*    1 

* 

1 

* 

* 

* 

1  o 

0 

5 

2 

0 

*  1    1 

o  1 

o  1 

1  o 

0 

1    1 

0 

1 

5 

1 

1  o 

*  1 

1  o  | 

o  II  * 

0 

2 

5 

0 

0  J 

0 
0 

1       1 

1  o 
1  o 

1  o  | 

1  0  1 

1  o 

*  1      1 

1  * 

* 

1  * 

0 

3 

2 

2 

Scott  

* 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0 

2         K 

0 

1 

6 

0 

0 

1  o 

1  o  | 

* 

* 

* 

* 

4 

3 

0 

Strobridge    

|  0 

1  o  1 

• 

* 

0 

2 

3 

2 

Stuckenbruck   .. 

o 

1  o 

1  ° 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

*  1 

*  1    1 

*  1     ! 

*  1 

* 

0 

* 

6 

1 

0 

Tyrrell    1 

1  o 

1  o  | 

1  o  1 

*  1 

* 

0 

0 

2 

5 

0 

Wolfe    1 

1  o 

1   0   | 

1  o  | 

1  o 

* 

0 

0 

1 

6 

0 

Totals    I 

16  |22   ||13   |25   | 

20  |20  | 

30   |  9  | 

33  |  5  |  j20  |15  | 

17  |18    | 

150  |  113 

17 

Vote  B — Kehoe  changed 
Character  "*"  indicates 
Character  "0"  indicates 


from  "Aye"  to  "No"  to  secure  reconsideration, 
vote  for  Progressive  Policies, 
vote  against  Progressive  Policies. 


to 

o 

> 

•*— > 

</5 

H 
H 

c 
o 

a 
B 


< 


to 

O 

o 

a; 


•juasqv 


•saptiOcj    9AtS 
■saiSaia    }sui-e3v 


OAissaaSoJci    ao^ 


•uop-Biadoad 
-d"B  }no  }nb  6}  }85i 
-unf  odsioubjjj  u'bs 
0}  ^uauip'uaujv  uum£) 


■aiq^i  uo  prei 
aq  junooov  esued 
-xg  oSsiq  ubs  l^m 
uoi}oui  A^i  oj  uopoH 


uop'BiJdoadd'B   }no 
ubs    °}    juauipueuiy 


•Ilia    uop 
-bj;s{S8H— 9SSI  -a  'V 


'lUa  AJ-euiua  i^h 
-uapisaJd— ign  -g  "V 


•ilia  lon^a 
jo  uijo^— 9Q^x   -g   -y 


•Aveq;  uot;oeia  u-bsij 
-a-ea-uoN— sii    a   "V 


-9}0A 

I^utj      'juauipuauiv 
jptua— 01-    "V    *o    'V 


8;oa    isj;    ina    sna 
Aaujtf— 08SI     'a     -V 


SJ-eaA  z\  °%  saSpnf 
.iojjedns      iuaqiuno 

ui  uuaj,  puajxa 
o}'q}oa— Z     V     D    'S 


a)     S 
o     rt 


lO"*«D'«'c- 


oo     oo 


oo      oo 


C  t.  to  >  ci 


1-hoocoo 


00  OS  i-l  «C  ««« 


tH  l-l  05  tH  «B 


OO      o  o 


oo     oo 


oo      o  o 


»  *       » 


O  C  3  >.  o 
<D  o>  o  o  u 

KMNCCfO 


OHOrtO 


IfttOOOTflO    lOCS«tf"USm 


C^ONMr-i 


IO05NU5U5 


NHtiN* 


OO        OO 


O        OO 


o  ooo 


S  B3C8 

p^J  <U  <V  P. 

P  3  -  E  5 

wmcQWc 


oooo© 


ooooo 


ooo      o 


41  > 

C  °  C  t- 

es.cc  o  c 
OOOUC 


3 
C 

-a 

§ 
o 

CO 

w 

H 

o 
> 

H 
co 
W 
H 

Z 

w 

H 
O 

W 

>< 

M 

w 

CO 
CO 

<J 
fa 

O 

CO 

Q 
« 
O 

o 

fa 
« 


w 
-J 

PQ 
< 


■juesqv 

•SapilOd     8AIS 

■sepiiOti 
9Aissea3oJci    JLO& 


•uop'Biadoad 
-&-B  }no  }nb  6}  ^85i 
-unp  oosiDuiaa^  ires 
0}  ^uauipuaiuy  uuin£) 


'siq'Bj,  uo  PF6! 
aq  junooov  -  esuad 
-xg  oSaia  ubs  l^m 

UOI}OUI  Av\   o}   UOI}OJ\[ 


■uoH'BUdoadd'B  jno 
;no  o'}  p^unf  oSaia 
ubs    °1    ^uauipuauiv 


•ina  «oij 

■•BJisiSeH— 9SSX  'a  'V 


'Ilia    AUBUIUd    rei} 

-U8p[s9ja— ash  'a  'v 


•ma  loiiBa 

jo    uuoji— 9SH    "a    'V 


M^  UOIJ09ia  U13SIJ 

•jBa-uoN— sti  'a  "v 


•3}0A 
reuy        ';U9UipU9UIV 

iprua— Of>    'V    'O    'V 


icotetoH 


to  ■<»•  co  c- •■»' 


MfflHOin 


o      o      o 


o      ooo 


a;oA   ;st    ma    sna 
Aau^if— 08SI     a     "V 


s-reaA"  zi  o;  saSpnp 
jouadns  ;uaquino 
-u"t  uuaj,  puajxa 
o> "  9JOA— 2     V    'O    'S 


W  CD 

O       03 


f  •*  r-l  •*  -* 


*eo>N» 


oo  o 


oo      oo 


*  *  »       * 


*  *  *  #  * 


OOOOrH 


m  co  co  co  to 


OHfloO 


lBN*t.O 


lO  t>  ■*<■*<  in 


OO      oo 


oo  o 


*  *  * 


0 


tj  coo 

2  B  rt  d 

0i  OOOS 

ppaww 


oo      oo 


a 

o 


HM 


•*  t-^coS 


*  »  *  *  # 


*  *  »       » 


»      »  * 


oo  o 


Phi 


"■gill 

q  03  c3  03  o3 


S     5 


£5 


o  c« 

M   Q   S 


IdOc         B 

•gr§SS2 


=  «  £.£: 

co    OfVto 

"  4>  a; 

-     >  fc. 

E   03    £ 

<p  g  w 
to<i-i  ™ 

£  01  4) 

IQ  O  O 
4)  >  > 

&■■ 

«££ 

■?  <«  ? 

O  y  O 

E  B  B 

fi.    . 
Si  o 


TO       •    -t-J  -^ 

o  CQou 
aj  f-;  *=; 

OC£ 


"3 

OQ 

< 

0 

•}U9sqv 

- 

H 
CD 

CO 

OHHO 

HHHMM 

MHNCH 

Wt- 

ego  c-i 

•S9I0Il0a      3AIS 

-S9a3oj'a     jsunsSy 
•sapnoa 

9AISS9j30Ja     JO^i 

■*«00U! 

coeoeoioeo 

Mtt-Offl 

■<r  us  oo  •*  oo 

fflOHin 

co  to  to  CO-* 

fflujnSo 

co-<t<ocoo 

•uop'Biadoad 
-d-B  }no  }nb  6}  }9Ji 
-unf  oosidu'bj^  ires 
0}  }U8Uipil9tUV  uumf) 

o 

OO 

ooooo 

oc 

<=> 

ooo 

» 

• 

* 

I 
0 

•aiq'Bi  no  prei 
eq    ^unooov    esuad 
-xg  oSeia  u^S  l^m 
uoiioui  X-bi  oj  uouopi 

o 

< 
o 

y. 

< 

o 
Z 

"cT 
>> 
<_ 

* 

*  * 

* 

o             o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o     ooo 

•uotj'Bjadojdd^  }no 
}no  6}  ^ejjunf  oSajQ 

U^g      0}      }U9UipU9Uiy 

ooo 

o         o 

o 

o 

o          o 

*  * 

* 

* 

* 

* 

•ma:  uon 
--BJ^siSaa— 9ssx  -g  *v 

ooo© 

o     o 

oo     o 

* 

•  *  *  *  * 

»  *       • 

»            * 

u. 

< 

oo  oo 

o     o 

oo      o 

* 

*  *  *  *  » 

*  *       * 

*            » 

LU 
0 

•ma  lonua 

jo   uuo^— 9SfI    a    V 

o 
55 

oooo 

o 

oo 

s 

>. 

* 

*       *  •  * 

*  *       * 

* 

•avbt;  uoqoeia  itbsi} 
-a-Ba-uoN— sii   "a'  -V 

o 
of 

< 

oooo 

o 

o      o 

oo     o 

* 

*  *  *       * 

*  *       * 

*             * 

o 

"8J0A 

I-buu      'juatupuauiv 
Jiotua— Of-    "V     D    'V 

o 

y. 

~-s 

>> 

< 

*  * 

*  » 

#            * 

*       * 

ooo 

o         o 

o  o      o 

o     o 

0 

< 

•9}OA   }si    ma    sna 

xaujir— ossi   'a    v 

0 

55 

>> 

< 

o 

»            * 

* 

*       * 

• 

o     oo 

ooo 

ooo 

ooo 

o 

•sjb9A  z\  0}  saSpnf 
aouadns      ^uaqumo 
-u'i     uxiex     pu9}X9 
o\   9;oa— Z    V    "O    'S 

*  *       * 

* 

*  * 

• 

o     o 

McDonald,  W.  A.  1  0 
McPherson     0 

o 

o         oo 

o      " 

c 

c 

(4 

0) 

do  : 

c  > 

> 

0 

'- 

1-5 

-a 

ft 

c 
-. 

« 

z 
>  c 

? 

■j 

8 

: 
i 

03 

Z. 

zz 
XI 

03 
S3 

bo 

<D 

T  c 
C  C 

»■= 

■_  ; 

fcC 

s 

4 

: 
1 

Pi 

03 

- 

- 

1 

-> 

I 

0 

to 

< 
En 

O 
H 

•juasqv 

O        OM« 

HNNOO 

|H©»-I©CM 

- 

- 

©lHl-1 

-r 

-r 

(C 

l- 
H 

es 
i- 

H 

>* 

en 

LC 

DC 

I- 
CO 

CO 
CC 

cc 
US 

to 

I- 

Cl 

■* 

•sapnoa    9AIS 

-S90J30Ja      1SUIB3V 

•sapnoa 
9A;ss9j3oaa    a<\4 

t-        lO(M^I< 

©t-OSt— r-l 

CO-*  r»<COm 

VNHMrt 

C5       miOrt< 

©IHIOOJ© 

BtOlOTPM 

in  t~©  t-oo 

•uojyejjdojd 
-dv  }no  }no  0}  }93i 

-Unf  OOSIDUBJ^i  U'BS 

0}  }u9iup'u9uiv  uujnf) 

0 

Z 

1» 

o 

O       OO 

©O        © 

©o     o© 

©o      © 

50 
5C 

H 

e 

1- 

Cl 

© 
H 

* 

*       * 

^iqux   uo   pii3[ 
9q    ^unooov    9suad 

uoj}oui  Ai3i  oj  uonoj\[ 

* 

* 

* 

»  •  »  * 

0) 

c 

©     © 

o       ©© 

©©      ©© 

© 

•uon'B{J<Ioad(I'B  ino 
}no  0}  }83iunf  oSata: 
UBg    0}    ^uauipuGuiy 

©     ©      © 

o©©© 

©© 

©© 

O 

H 

CI 
CI 

Tf 

H 

© 
:i 

Cd 

ec 

CI 

ir: 
H 

Cl 

<M 

H 

C 

M 

C) 
I.C 

m 

cr. 

Cl 

to 

•* 

Cl 

< 

* 

•  • 

•       * 

•ina  uop 

-■bj;s;S9H— 9SST    3    V 

© 

© 

o© 

© 

*  *  » 

*       * 

*  » 

»  »  »  * 

Ui 

Q 
O 

•Ilia  jtiBuiiaj  iv\i 
-uapisaaa— iSf'T   a   V 

0 

Id 

o 

8 

© 

o©      © 

© 

•  •  • 

*       # 

*  *       *  * 

•  •  •  •  • 

"ina  ^on-ea 

jo   uuo.i— 99f-x    a   -v 

© 

©©     © 

© 

*  *  * 

*       * 

*  *       *  » 

•  •  •  •  * 

CO 
CXI 

C<1 
CO 

CC 

CC 

&c 

-r 

O 

cc 

uC 

ITj 
Cl 

C) 

CO 

li- 
CC 

m 

c 

h 

c 

ct 
1- 

c 

•mbi  uoqoaia  tresi} 

-xBa-uoN— su  -a'  -v 

c 

y. 

V 
ft 

0 

3 

© 

©©     © 

© 

in 

*  *  * 

#       *   j*  #       *  * 

*  *  »  •  » 

f 

CI 

© 

DC 

CJ 

l- 

Ci 

•9}0A 

Ii3uu      'juauipuauiy 
jpnaa— 0*    -V    -D     V 

» 

*  *        l»  *  » 
1 

•  •  •  •  • 

©o© 

©©         © 

©© 

CO 

< 

•9}oa   }sx    ma    sna 

Asujir— 089X   'a   "v 

c 

y. 

03 
to 

i 

C 

5 

*  * 

.. 

* 

© 

©© 

o      o© 

©©© 

CI 

CI 

CI 

-r 
CM 

ed 

& 

■- 
c 

"c 

c 

pq 

•SJ-B9A  sx  °*  saSpnp 
jouadng      }U9qumo 
-UI      UIJ9X      puajxa 
O}    9J0  A—  Z      V     T>     'S 

* 

*        *  * 

*  *  # 

*  *  #  # 

DC 

©     © 

©     © 

©© 

u  fe 

CO  o 

bftJ 

C  0 

"3-5  c 

O  3  > 

3  r 

COM 

i 

- 

V 

hop  : 

a> 

o  o  o  a 
a  o  o.C 
COtC  CO  CO 

1 
X 
a 
£■ 
■J 

c 
C 
i 
a 

u 
<0 

C 

£ 

c 

Cj 

u 

D 

tl,  be  c 

■ccs 

5 

c 
Eh 

U    i 


—  ' —  ~    t.  * 


ible  III — Records  of  Senators  on  Five  Votes 
DEALING  WITH  SO-CALLED  MORAL  ISSUES 


1 

A         || 

B         || 

1 

1    u 

<u  o 

'—  3 

J-  m 
-  tt) 

"   3 

5 

5 

0<H 

~-  o 
3  f 

r       TOTALS. 

u 

S1  s 

to  j3 

c 

o 

c 
o 

d 

bus 

For  Key 

P  Ml 
be'" 

bCO 
'Z  U 

Q 

>. 

■3-S 

>  c 
go 

in 
o 

See 

Su 

£c 

3  O 

<D 

0 

Page    iii. 

2— Mak 
ble     fo 

IS 

1-   _ 

1   ™ 

1    o 

Tl    3 

"   0)  0 

- 
O 

si 

a 

0 
3 
CO 

■*  o 

2  aj 

M  O 

C  o 

nf 

pq? 

CO 

to 

c 

w  i3      l 

1 

1 

«U           1 

< 

!         03 

02 

CO 

o 

to 

< 

< 

Aye  ;   No   ||  Aye  |   No   ||  Aye  |   No   |  Aye  |   No   ||  Aye  |   No   || 


Vnderson 
allard 
j  J  'ban 
Benedict 
P^nson 


Strobridge 
Stuckeiibruck 

Thompson 
Tyrrell  . . 
Wolfe    ... 


TotalB 

Vote   C— Bu 
Character 

Character  "0' 


er  changed  his  vote  from  Aye  to  No  to  move   to  reconsider. 
indicates  a  vote  for  such  policies, 
indicates  a  vote  against  such  policies. 


Table  IV — Records  of  Assemblymen  on  Seven  Votes 
DEALING  WITH  SO-CALLED  MORAL  ISSUES 


A      | 

B      ||       C 

D      ||       E 

F       II 

G       || 

1    u 

0)  o 

io 

-i 

•a 

U) 

«■ 

.—  o 

TOTALS. 

- 

~s=. 

e 

0) 

<v 

% 

sS 

n  <u 

5£ 

£ 

g 

£ 

ai  ft 

n33 

P  to 

Q 

aOai 

< 

Bo 

c  a 

m 

&~ 

a 

o 

O  <D 

>  m 

.—  — ■ 

u 

For  Key 
See 

?  3 

mo 

a** 

m 

2c 

>.2 

si 

o 

o 

Pu 

o 
3 

Page    iii. 

a! 
1* 

0)  o1 

r 

1  " 

■*   JO 

I'g 

0) 

o° 

o 

O 

Pm 

5°« 

< 

<m 

32 

as      '£ 

M  o  o 

c 

w 

B. 
tion 
Hous 

6o 

£ 

rj§ 

,3 

m~ 

PQ-S 

.£ 

op 

PQ-gS 

3 
m 

.£ 
"3 

bi) 

! 

2 

< 

!   < 

< 

< 

<j 

< 

'J2 

fo 

<! 

< 

Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No 

|  Aye|  No  |  |Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No 

|Aye|  No  | 

1 

*   1 

1        1   0   | 

1    0   | 

1   0   |        ||        |0 

1      1  o 

1*1         1 

2 

5  1       ( 

*   I        1 

(*|        | 

0   1 

1    0   |        || 

0 

1      1  o  | 

*    1 

3 

4  1 

1 

i   *   1        1 

0   1 

1   0   |        || 

o 

1  o 

* 

2 

4  1       " 

*    1 

1*1        1 

1  * 

1        1   *   II 

1  *  1 

* 

6 

0  1 

Bartlett    

*   1        1 

1*1        I 

1  * 

1        1   *   II 

0 

1     1  o  1 

*    1 

b 

2|      ( 

Beck     

*  1 

*  I 

1*1        1 

1*1        1 

0  1 

o  1 

1   0   |        || 

1  o  1 

0 

0 

I        1   ° 
1   0 

* 

2 
3 

4  1 

4  1 

*  ! 
!      ! 

1   *   1 

1        1        1 

o  1 

0  1 

1  o  1      ||  * 

1  *  1 
!  ° 

* 
* 

b 
1 

2  1 

1  0  |       ||       |0 

4  1 

*  1 

1*1      ! 

1   * 

1    1  *  II    1 

1  *  1 

1 

6 

01 

1  *  1 

1*1      1 

1    1  * 

1        1   *   II        10 

1  *  1 

• 

6 

11 

!  *  1 

1  *  1 
!  *  1 

I  *  | 

1   0   | 

1  * 

1   0  |                |0 

1      1*1*1 

1        o 

* 
» 

3 

1       6 

4  1 

1 

0 

1  | 

!      1 

1   0   | 

*0          II       10 

0 

* 

| 

2 

4  1 

1      1      ' 

1       1 

1  0 

0   |       ||       |  0 

1 

0   1 

!     o 

1  i 

Chamberlin    

1      1 
1      I 

1  *  1 

I  *  1 

1  o  t 

1    1  * 

1  0  1       II       |0 

|   0  |                |0 

0 

1 

2 

3 

Chenoweth     .... 

1      1 

1  *  ! 

1  0  | 

1  0  | 

0 

1 

3  | 

1      1 
1      1 

1      1 

1  °  1 

1  o  | 

I   0  | 

!  o  i 

0 

0 
1 

3 

2  1 

I  *  1 

1  *  1 

1  * 

1     1 

*  1 

1 

* 

5 

0 

1  *  | 

1  *  1 

1  * 

1  * 

l 

6 

0 

1      | 

1      1 

o  1 

1  o 

| 

0 

2 

Edwards,   R.    G. 

I  *  1 

1  *  | 

o  1 

1  o  1 

1  o 

0 

3 

4 

I  *  | 

o  1 

1  o  | 

1  o 

2 

3 

1  *  1 

1  *  1 

1  *  1 

1  0  1 

1  °  1  , 

II  0  | 

II  o 

1  * 

1  o 
1  o 

* 

! 

0 

0 

* 

2 
3 

6 

4 
4 

0 

Fish    

1  *  1 

0  | 

1  1, 

1  o 

1 

3 

l  *  1 

1  o 

1  o  1 

II     1  * 

1 

! 

0 

2 

3 

Godsil     

* 

i      I  o 

1  *  1 
1  *  [ 

1   0   | 

1  o  1 
1  o  1 

1    0  | 

1      1  o 

1 

*  1 

*  1 

1 
2 
3 

4  1 

1*1      1  o 

2  | 

0  | 

1   0 

1       1  0 

4  | 

Hayes,  D.  R 

1    *    1 

1   0   | 

1    0 

1  o 

1       1 

2 

3  1 

Hayes,   J.   J 

1   0   | 

1    1 

1      1  o 

1  o 

3 

3  1 

i  *  | 

1  *  1 

1    1  * 

II   0  | 

!  ° 

1 

3 

2  1 

1  *  1 

I  *  1 

II  *  1 

1     1  * 

1   0   | 

II     1  *  II 

i  *  i 

i     I 

1         1 

6 
1 

0  I 

ll   0   | 

1     1  o 

i  *  l 

II  *  1 

1  °  1 
1     1  * 

II  o  | 

II    1  * 

1     1  o 

1  *  1 

1   0 

1  *  1 

|.| 

2 
7 

4 

Kramer    

0  1 

Totals    ....... 

|23  | 

||33  1   3  ||28   |12 

||27  111   ||   5   |25 

II  8   |21 

125   |   1 

|  117 

I  105  I    5 

Character  "*' 
<  Jharacter  "0' 


indicates  vote  for   such 
indicates  vote  against 


policies, 
such    policies. 


(Concluded    on 


Table  IV  Con. — Records  of  Assemblymen  on  Seven  Votes 
DEALING  WITH  SO-CALLED  MORAL  ISSUES 


1 

A      || 

B      ||       C              D 

E      II 

F      II      G       || 

<D  O 

**  3 
- 

30 
,a  0 

a 

V 

■a 

G 

it, 

S 

0  j* 

- 1 

TOTALS. 

i  _ 

—  r. 
9  be 

< 

< 

B 

ent   sa 
eball  p 

c  c 

oj 

£- 

G 

K"    W 

For  Key 

te 

t  v 

2| 

1  * 

X  c 

2  0 

4)  as 
ftW 

"He 

w 

0 

See 
Page   iii. 

7- 

Co 
\> 

O+j 

ftcs 

O.S 

1" 

Ph  3 
1  ^  w 

01 

a 

0 
Ph 

0 

0 

1  .a 

0) 

1  s 

oc  G 

J,P  0 

"•  ™  i 

^ 

<* 

£=3 

S  | 

OS         S 

■C 

x 

O   ^ 

in 

pq  =  - 

w  0  3. 

6; 

O  <0 

pj~    1 

pj5 

Mod 

m 

c 

01 

•j.  — 

~£ 

E 

£ 

.*    ' 

*»£ 

O 

ta 

< 

< 

1    < 

< 

< 

< 

OS 

h 

< 

<j 

j  Aye|  No  !  |  Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No  1 1  Aye|  No  1 1 

*  1      i 

*  1     11     1*1 

1  *  1 

*  1      1 

* 

* 

7 

0 

ii 

*  1 

*  1           1*1 

1 

7 

0 

11 

*  1 

*  1     11  0  1 

0 

0  1 

0 

* 

3 

4 

0 

*  1     11  0  I 

0 

0  i 

0 

1 

b 

1 

McDonald.   J.  J. 

*  1      i 

*  l     11  0  1     1 

0 

1  0  1 

0 

1 

2 

4 

1 

McDonald,  W.  A. 

1      1 

I     II  0  1     1 

0 

1 

1  0 

0 

0 

4 

:j 

*  1 

*  1           1  * 

1 

5 

0 

McPherson     .... 

*  1 

*  1     II     1 

1 

0 

* 

4 

1 

*  1      1 

*       11  0  1 

0 

1 

1  0 

0 

* 

3 

4 

11 

Marron     

1      I 

1     11  0  1 

1        1 

1 

0 

0 

2 

*  1 

1*1     11  0  1 

1    1*1 

* 

1 

0  II  * 

5 

2 

0 

*  | 

1*1     li  0 

1  0  1      1 

0  II  * 

3 

3 

1 

1  o 

1*1     11  0  1 

1  0  1 

* 

0 

* 

3 

4 

0 

*  1 

1*1           l  * 

1     1*1 

* 

* 

* 

7 

0 

0 

Phillips    

1  o 

1  0  11  0  1 

1  0  1     1 

1  0  1 

1      1  0 

0 

6 

1 

Prendergast    . . . 

*   1 

1     1     11  °  I 

1 

1  °  1 

0 

* 

2 

3!      2 

1  o 

1*1     11     I  * 

1*1     11  0  1 

* 

1  ° 

0 
0 

0 

4 
1 

2 
5 

1 

0 

1 

* 

1*1     11  0  1 

* 

3 

1 

3 

1 

l     l     II  0  1 

0 

1  0  | 

0 

1 

4 

1*1     ll     l  * 

*  1 

1      | 

1 

* 

4 

0 

n 

Rutherford   

l     11     l 

1 

0 

0 

7 

1*1     II  0  j 

II 

0 

0 

0 

1 

5 

1 

*    I 

11  0  | 

0 

0  I 

0 

2 

4 

1 

Ratterwhite    

*  1 

1*1     |l     I  * 

0 

0 

* 

4 

2 

1 

Schmitt    

*   1 

1*1     ll  0  1 

0 

0  I 

1 

0 

* 

3 

4 

0 

Scott.   C.   E 

*    1 

1*1     I  0  1 

0 

1 

0 

* 

3 

3 

l 

Scott,   F.   C 

*    I 

1*1     1      I  *  ll 

* 

0 

0 

« 

5 

0 

0 

Scott,   L.   D 

*    1 

l*l     ll     I  *  11     l  * 

1      1      1 

* 

* 

6 

0 

1 

!      1 

I     I     11  0  1     11  0  1 

1      1  0 

1 

1 

3 

3 

Shartel   

1    *    1 

l*l     11  0  1 
1*1 

* 

* 

1  * 

0 

* 
* 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1      1 

1  *  1 

l  0  11     I  * 

* 

0 

0 

* 

4 

0 

0 

Tabler    

1*1     11  0  1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

i  *  !       II  0  | 

0 

0 

* 

2 

3 

1      - 

Wills    

1    *    1 

1    *    1 

1*1       II       1  *  II       1  * 
1*1       II       1  *  II       1  * 

1 

1  * 

0 

* 
* 

1 

1      5 

7 

1 
0 

1      1 

*  1 

11 

Wright.   H.  W.. 

1   *   I 

1*1       II       1  *  II       1  * 

I  • 

* 

*  1 

7 

0 

1     0 

Wright,   T.  M... 

1    *    1 

1*1               1*1        I  * 

* 

* 

* 

1       7 

0 

ll 

1    *   1 

1*1       II       1  *  II       1  * 

1  * 

* 

*  1 

i     7 

0 

ll 

Totals    

|27  |  3 

|32   |   2  ||22  |16  ||18  |19 

111  |18 

1  9  123  ||: 

1  142 

90 

' 

Bro't  forward. 

|23  |  0 

|33  |  3   ||28  |12   ||27  |11 

|  5  |25 

1  8  |21   ||25  |  1 

I  117 

105 

1    58 

Grand    Totals. 

|50   |   3 

165   |  5   ||50  |28  ||45  |30 

ll.;  ,c: 

|17  |44  ||53   1  5 

!    259 

19E 

|  106 

Character 
Character  "0" 


indicates  vot^  for   such    policies, 
indicates  vote  against    such    policies. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


"T  9  ' 


$ss 


11BM11L 
WIIBfflfflm 


lilt 


